Philip Ashmore <cont...@philipashmore.com> writes: > It appears that gcc-4.6 (and clang for that matter) make some dodgy > decisions about what appear to be references to temporaries created > during optimization.
You don't seem to have addressed the issue raised by Matthias Klose in the bug thread though: specifically, whether this is truly a compiler problem, or simply buggy code exposed by the newer compilers. That it works as intended with older compilers or -O0 isn't enough to show that -- it's very common for buggy code to work correctly for a long time, and then suddenly stop working when a new compiler release uses more aggressive [but correct] optimization. It seems like an important step here would be to reduce this down to a minimal test case. [The fact that both newer versions of gcc and clang show the same behavior does suggest that maybe it's the application code which is buggy.] -Miles -- One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do, and always a clever thing to say. -- Will Durant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
