http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47533
--- Comment #3 from Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd dot org> 2011-01-29 17:39:42
UTC ---
> You don't really say what the error is. Is it that the number after got2
> differs from the one after got1?
Yes, it’s a local variable of foo() and bar() and thus not supposed to be
overwritten by baz()
> Can you rewrite the test case so that it does
> a runtime check and an exit(1) or similar if the error is detected?
Sure. But…
> Looking in klibc-1.5.21 I see that the published prototype for open() is:
>
> __extern int open(const char *, int, ...);
>
> This looks fine, but the actual definition (which deliberately doesn't see the
> above prototype) is:
>
> int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode)
> { ... }
>
> This is invalid C, and very sloppy programming.
… if this is the case (is it? I seem to think *everyone* handles open()
this way), then it’s not a bug in gcc (I think) but in klibc.
