https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-07
21:10:04 UTC ---
Don't we have an old issue with folding happening too early in some cases? I'm
wondering if this isn't just an example, but I can't quickly find that issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-07
20:57:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Whatever it is, doesn't have much to do with constexpr, consider:
That definitely makes it feel like 0*n being considered a null pointer constant
w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-07
19:41:33 UTC ---
Whatever it is, doesn't have much to do with constexpr, consider:
#include
int f(void *) { return 0; }
int f(...) { return 1; }
int g(int n) { return f(n*0); }
int m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-07
18:51:00 UTC ---
Looks like 0*0 is being considered a null pointer constant.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
--- Comment #1 from Hubert Matthews 2013-04-07
18:39:04 UTC ---
Compiled with g++-4.7.0 -Wall -Wextra -std=c++11 on Fedora 14, 64-bit.
10 matches
Mail list logo