https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #9 from Eric Bollengier ---
Thanks for the "behavior is undefined" explanation. I understand a bit better
why the GCC team did this choice.
However, here, we don't talk about such kind of objects. In my case for
example, objects that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #4 from Eric Bollengier ---
I don't know exactly when someone decided that a doing memset(buf, 0,
sizeof(buf)); leads to an "undefined behavior", but it's how C and C++ work
since quite long time. And it's also why the operator new()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #2 from Eric Bollengier ---
Created attachment 38907
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38907&action=edit
c++ file that reproduces the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #1 from Eric Bollengier ---
Created attachment 38906
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38906&action=edit
ii file generated with -O0
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: eric at baculasystems dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 38905
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38905&action=edit
.ii file generated with -O1 op
