https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97316
Bug ID: 97316
Summary: config/libbid/bid64_noncomp.c: 7 * pointless test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
I get something similar with this test case:
int a;
void b() {
if (a >= 2147483647)
c(a + 1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ source code is
class a {
public:
struct b {
int *c;
};
enum { j = 1 } e : 2;
struct {
b c;
} d;
bool f() const { return e & j; }
int *g() const;
};
int *a::g() const {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
Nothing has happened on this bug report for more than two months.
Perhaps Uros is best placed to make progress with this bug.
I would be happy to help with any testing of patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #25 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #21)
> Maybe gcc compiling itself with the analyzer might find some bugs, too.
I tried this and all I found were AFAIK false positives.
Perhaps someone with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
I see no progress on this bug for over a month now.
I'd be happy to help with testing.
Perhaps Jason is best placed to make progress on this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97381
Bug ID: 97381
Summary: ice error: invalid types in nop conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97381
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is:
int a;
void b() {
char c = 27;
for (; c <= 85; c += 1) {
a /= 148372120 * c;
if (a)
for (;;)
;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97378
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97381
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The problem first seems to occur sometime between 20201006 and 20201007.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97466
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97472
Bug ID: 97472
Summary: Another EVRP problem
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97480
Bug ID: 97480
Summary: ice in vect_get_and_check_slp_defs, at
tree-vect-slp.c:538
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97496
Bug ID: 97496
Summary: ice during during GIMPLE pass: cddce
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97359
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
The reduced C code is
typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
int a;
void b(uint32_t c) {
uint32_t *d =
for (; a;)
for (;; (*d %= a) / (*d > 1 > (c > 0)) ?: d)
;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97359
Bug ID: 97359
Summary: ice in logical_combine, at gimple-range-gori.cc:754
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97359
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The code seems to break gcc trunk sometime between 20201006 and 20201007.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97347
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97371
Bug ID: 97371
Summary: evrp problem with gcc.target/s390/pr77822-2.c and -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97354
Bug ID: 97354
Summary: ice during GIMPLE pass: slp
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97371
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is
int a, b;
void c() {
if (b >> 38)
a = b;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97330
Bug ID: 97330
Summary: ice for stmt with wrong VUSE
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97330
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code is:
typedef int a;
typedef char b;
int c;
void d(e, f, dst, g, avail, h) int e;
b *f, *dst;
a g, avail;
int h;
{
b i = *f;
if (e)
goto j;
while (avail) {
*dst = i;
j:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97330
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Flags -Werror=implicit-int and -Werror=old-style-definition seem useful.
Here is another reduced test case:
int a, b, d;
char c, e;
void f(void) {
char g = c;
if (b)
goto h;
while (d) {
e =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #21 from David Binderman ---
So given that the analyzer doesn't crash on the current Linux kernel code,
does it do anything useful like find any bugs, perhaps ?
Maybe gcc compiling itself with the analyzer might find some bugs, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97175
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
>From the text in the proposed patch:
>Using DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION() with a tree node that's not a DECL
>isn't a good idea, and neither is using EXPR_LOCATION() with
>a node that is a DECL. Both trigger
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97175
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Interesting.
$ fgrep DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION `find trunk/gcc -name \*.c -print | fgrep -v
/testsuite/` | wc -l
1002
$ fgrep EXPR_LOCATION `find trunk/gcc -name \*.c -print | fgrep -v /testsuite/`
| wc -l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97265
Bug ID: 97265
Summary: new warning with clang build
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94433
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I use something like
cppcheck --enable=all --language=c++ trunk.git/gcc/analyzer/*.{h,cc}
This seems to work to me, although my copy of cppcheck is a hand
tweeked version of their development code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97218
Bug ID: 97218
Summary: gcc/fortran/resolve.c:6807: pointless Assignment
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94433
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> However I'm confused by the "can be declared with const [constParameter]"
> warnings in comment #0 - they look const to me. What are these messages
> trying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97539
Bug ID: 97539
Summary: error: definition in block 5 does not dominate use in
block 24
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97540
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97606
Bug ID: 97606
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2196
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> No, this would be definitely wrong.
Agreed.
> If the original code does not make you happy, do you think sth. along
>
> #define SZ (SZU64 * (sizeof (uint64_t) /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578
Bug ID: 97578
Summary: ice during IPA pass: inline
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
Bug ID: 97581
Summary: libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Here is a second simpler test case:
int a;
static void b(int c) {
if (a)
while (c)
b(0);
d();
}
void e(c) { b(c); }
void f() { e(0); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98629
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98629
Bug ID: 98629
Summary: ice during GIMPLE pass: widening_mul
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98562
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98562
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
I see this problem in C++ on x86_64. Source code attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
No progress for another couple of months.
Can I assume that fixing this bug isn't a priority for the next release of gcc
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> I can't reproduce it anymore.
The code in comment 7 still fails.
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -w -ffast-math bug634.c 2>&1 | fgrep error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98340
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
> Created attachment 49789 [details]
> try this
Thanks. That seemed to build ok.
> I tried building with clang, but it barfed about invalid utf8 in libiberty.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98369
Bug ID: 98369
Summary: Two new warnings from clang for gcc trunk build
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98369
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98235
Bug ID: 98235
Summary: ice in decompose with -O3 -fallow-store-data-races
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
This valgrind problem has existed since sometime before 20201123.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98378
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Looks bad. Trying 571d3fb1f40fa85c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98378
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
git bisect in progress. Trying hash f23753c710d54fdf.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98378
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Looks good. Trying 0dd48296433763ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98378
Bug ID: 98378
Summary: new valgrind error for
./gcc.c-torture/execute/pr60960.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98378
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98378
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Looks bad. Trying 5137d1ae6a1fe4a3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98378
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Testsuite file ./gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c, with flag -O2,
has similar problems with a valgrind version of gcc trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98378
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
I can provide, if requested, a list of other testsuite files
that fail in the same way.
This might be a good sanity check for Jakub's fix.
Otherwise, I suggest that this bug could be marked as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Trying hash f6e8e2797ebae21e.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Seems ok, so range reduces to 4cf70c20cb10acd6..97b56dece7413839
Trying 7f359556a772e26e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Seems good, so range reduces to 7f359556a772e26e..97b56dece7413839
Trying 1423318fa7786493
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Seems good, so range reduces to f6e8e2797ebae21e..97b56dece7413839
Trying 4cf70c20cb10acd6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
Bug ID: 98393
Summary: new valgrind error for ./gcc.target/m68k/pr52573.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Range so far seems to be 7f359556a772e26e..1423318fa7786493
Trying fa4a8b6463e0dbc2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
Also from the testsuite, files
./gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c
./gcc.dg/torture/pr98235.c
./gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-34.c
with -O3 show the same problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
Bug ID: 98323
Summary: current trunk won't build with clang
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
> stupid underspecified offsetof
I did try commenting out the offending block of code and a re-build
and got further errors ;-<
I don't know if you have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> Could you open a new PR to simplify tracking?
Sure. # 98263
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98263
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
bug 9337 => 93337
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
Bug ID: 98264
Summary: ice during linear_loads_p
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Seems ok. Trying 10bbba9145700e2c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98263
Bug ID: 98263
Summary: valgrind error in gfc_find_derived_vtab
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
10bbba9145700e2c won't build ;-<
git bisect skip says 3ed472af6bc9f83b7a8ac553b282f659a0bf53f7. Try that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Seems ok. Try 1751a78ecafb1d16d4a843dd22e739b8fd1cfede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Looks bad. Trying 501f470267445e03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Trying a git bisect now. First step hash
54f75d8fb3f54541e37432329581a362e6aab94e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98340
Bug ID: 98340
Summary: gcc trunk build with clang failure, part 2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98340
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
Bug ID: 97789
Summary: valgrind error with ./gcc.dg/c11-atomic-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Nice. Next time, please mention the exact revision you use.
Will do, although I suspect mentioning 20201107 in the compiler name
was a small clue.
For more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> I can't reproduce that.
Presumably you mean on today's compiler ?
Richard's change of Monday 9 November seemingly fixes it.
I'll check this on next Friday's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
>Maybe something like
>
> $ git rev-parse HEAD >> gcc/trunk.git/gcc/DATESTAMP
>
> would be enough to get it into the output of gcc -v.
For the record, my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I am having my first go at a git bisect. I am trying git hash 9243f0fba68339fa.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
For C++ testsuite file g++.dg/other/abstract8.C, the number
of errors seems to have gone down from 21 to 16.
Here is a diff of the errors:
$ diff /tmp/00 /tmp/11
1d0
< ./g++.dg/other/abstract8.C:13:9:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
Bug ID: 97890
Summary: Abstract virtual classes suddenly allowed as parameter
types ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Git hash 9243f0fba68339fa is silent on the code. Trying git hash
253c415a1acba507
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97894
Bug ID: 97894
Summary: gcc/attr-fnspec.h: 8 * function could be const ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Bug ID: 97905
Summary: ice in duplicate_decls, at cp/decl.c:2754
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ test case seems to be:
template void a() { extern int *b; }
int *b;
git bisect proceeds in other window.
If all I am interested in is the performance of cc1plus, which
make target should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I am getting git bisect results which indicate either commit
cb1a4876a0e724ca3962ec14dce9e7819fa72ea5 or commit
ba97b532604815333848ee30e069dde6e36ce4c9 is at fault.
Neither seem anything to do with C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #5)
> David, to build just cc1plus: 'make -C gcc cc1plus
> -j$how_many_cpus_available'
>
> pass 'CXXFLAGS=$whatever' to override the default (usually -O2 -g)
$ cd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97763
Bug ID: 97763
Summary: valgrind error in ./gcc.dg/vect/vect-nest-cycle-3.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97753
Bug ID: 97753
Summary: ice in operator[], at vec.h:880
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97830
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97830
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is:
a;
b() {
((void (*)())b)(a);
b(a);
}
Interestingly, this similar code
int a;
void b() {
((void (*)())b)(a);
b(a);
}
compiles fine.
1 - 100 of 1060 matches
Mail list logo
