Michael Felt <aixto...@felt.demon.nl> added the comment:
I tried check.c and check_bad.c using xlc-v11 (on my POWER6) - and the results were the same as in Pablo's entry. On the gcc119 host - using the v13 compiler, check_bad does not crash. Not gotten to testing xlc-v16 yet. I have seen lots of options today - wheile researching, so probably, yes. Just do not know it off the top. Atm - testing "master" build using xlc-v11 and xlc-v13. On 06/07/2020 18:13, David Edelsohn wrote: > David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> added the comment: > > I don't believe that this is an XLC bug, but I suspect that it is undefined > behavior / implementation-defined behavior. > > I suspect that this is tripping over AIX/XLC null behavior. AIX specifically > and intentionally maps the first page of memory at address 0 to allow the > compiler to speculate through NULL pointers. The compiler probably is > speculating in this case and the second element is not defined. > > There is some option to disable this speculation in XLC. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <https://bugs.python.org/issue41215> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue41215> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
