ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hugo_musso_gualandi at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 53734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53734&action=edit
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hugo_musso_gualandi at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The current Brazilian Portuguese translation is translating "unsigned" as if
had to do
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hugo_musso_gualandi at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
One way to convert an integer to a floating point number in C is to multiply it
by 1.0. In this case, gcc is clever enough to optimize away the multiplication
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94851
--- Comment #5 from Hugo Gualandi ---
Hi, I came across a similar problem and I think I might have found a smaller
test case. gcc complains about a NULL pointer dereference in the p->next
despite the loop condition testing that p is not NULL.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94851
--- Comment #4 from Hugo Gualandi ---
Created attachment 48493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48493&action=edit
Another test case (-O2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94851
Hugo Gualandi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hugo_musso_gualandi@hotmail
