https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
--- Comment #10 from Andrew ---
(In reply to Christian Prochaska from comment #0)
> test.c:
>
> void func()
> {
> unsigned int i;
>
> unsigned int *ptr = (unsigned int*)0xf000;
>
> for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
> *(ptr++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew from comment #7)
> IMHO
>
> "So no GCC bug, just wrongly assuming pointers can't become null pointers if
> they were not null pointers."
>
> Nevertheless, that is no reason to generate a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Andrew changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wad at infinet dot ru
--- Comment #7 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think this comes under tracking pointer provenance (DR#260) and saying
that certain arithmetic on pointers derived by casts from integers has
undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm, i?86-*-*
--- Comment #5 from Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
11 matches
Mail list logo
