https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #28 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #27) > ...so ragged in fact that it fails at all levels of optimization.... I > have not had time these last days to come back to it and understand > why. Something for the holidays! > > Paul > > On 28 November 2015 at 11:19, pault at gcc dot gnu.org > <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 > > > > Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot > > gnu.org > > > > --- Comment #26 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > I have a somewhat ragged patch that does the job. I will be cleaning it up > > in > > the next 24 hours for submission. > > > > Paul > > > > -- > > You are receiving this mail because: > > You are on the CC list for the bug. > > You are the assignee for the bug. OK - I found the problem with correct code; ie. the three cases in comment #0 with an allocation. However, not for the first time, I have failed to make the -fcheck=mem test work for the unallocated result. I suspect that there is some trivial problem and that I will crack it in the next 24 hours. Paul
