------- Comment #9 from hv at crypt dot org  2010-05-12 10:54 -------
The direction of discussion has centred so far on the documentation, but as far
as I can tell the only point at which the documentation confused someone was
the triage at #3. Should there not be a separate bug opened for problems with
the documentation?

Can somone with access to a stock 4.5.0 confirm that the originally reported
testcase does indeed show a bug?

In #7, Jakub says:
> 4.5.0 (rather than current 4.5 snapshots) had a bug with nonnull attribute
> if a function is IPA optimized and some arguments are optimized out, but I
> don't think that's the case here.

Do you have a reference for this bug? What makes you think this isn't the same?

Note that in the process of cutting down the original code to a testcase, one
constant that I found had to be preserved was that the test() function be
static, so that gcc had freedom to fiddle with the calling conventions; another
was that the first parameter be preserved even though unused; another was that
the second parameter needed its nonnull attribute. It sounds very similar to
me.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44081

Reply via email to