https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:948e8e401023f6c3153f6d0c449bc5c2899ee7b7
commit r12-8289-g948e8e401023f6c3153f6d0c449bc5c2899ee7b7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e7edb781867797d0a553a7db99d52ecd5e1
commit r12-8282-g9e7edb781867797d0a553a7db99d52ecd5e1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So IL wise the issue is that we go from
:
candidates(address-taken)[0].m_size = 2;
candidates(address-taken)[0].m_data = "so";
_1 = std::end (&candidates(address-taken));
_2 = std::begin (&candi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> Setting aside the question of warning about inequality expressions involving
> invalid pointers, it seems that if the annotation 'candidates ={v}
> {CLOBBER(eol)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Setting aside the question of warning about inequality expressions involving
invalid pointers, it seems that if the annotation 'candidates ={v}
{CLOBBER(eol)};' is to be interpreted as one would intuitively e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
It might be possible to run the pass earlier to avoid this problem but I
haven't managed to find a spot that didn't regress some -Wdangling-pointer
tests (at least g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer-2.C). Alterna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c++
12 matches
Mail list logo
