--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-05-30 06:42 ---
Richi, I think we're saying the same thing from two different directions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44321
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-29 17:46 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't think this bug is of any use. Unlike nonnull, unused return values do
> not trigger undesirable optimizations and (as far as I can tell) cannot
> possibly result in miscompilation.
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-05-29 17:32 ---
I don't think this bug is of any use. Unlike nonnull, unused return values do
not trigger undesirable optimizations and (as far as I can tell) cannot
possibly result in miscompilation.
This bug is indeed about a loophole,
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-29 11:40 ---
You can add
void bar4 (void)
{
int dummy;
dummy = foo ();
}
so I'm not sure the ignore_value () function call isn't a use. In fact
if you externalize that function it is at least a possible use.
Which also ra
--- Comment #1 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-29 11:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=20771)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20771&action=view)
testcase as per initial comment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44321
