https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
No, this analogy does not work. setjmp both sets up a buffer and receives
control, so it corresponds to both try and catch together. A matching "C++"
code would look like:
> void f3() {
> std::vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The content of the warning isn't very helpful, but I think it's pointing out a
real issue in the code, not a false positive.
Any valid longjmp which followed that setjmp would have undefined behaviour if
e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
--- Comment #2 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Does it work placing the initial part of the function in a separate { }?
Yes,
> @@ -14,11 +14,13 @@
> return true;
> }
> void f3() {
> +{
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.1.0
Keywords|
