https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
--- Comment #15 from Bruno Haible ---
> I think the following test case does show what Bruno was trying to prove.
Yes, the test case from comment 14 much better reflects what this bug report is
about, than the one from comment 13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #13)
> In case you haven't creduce'd the test case yet, here's what I got:
Of course that's a totally bogus test case given what Bruno was trying to
prove, namely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just to record some thoughts.
The implementation of the "clobbered by longjmp" warning essentially looks at
the objects that are live at the setjmp point. In theory we can do better when
we're dealing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
