https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086
--- Comment #6 from Andrea Griffini <agriff at tin dot it> --- The question is however: with a 32-bit intptr_t and a 64-bit double (that has no problem with ints up to 2^53) is it legal for gcc to avoid initialization of the memory? This is what gcc is doing. Where it's written in the standard that you cannot store an intptr_t value in a double and get it back? Is the fact that in some other hypothetical platform with some other hypothetical intptr_t size it could possibly happen that you lose accuracy enough to allow not performing a write when asked to? On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:08 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086 > > --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > note that on x86-64 the used values are 48-bit only and a double > provides enough > > accuracy to store them correctly. > > These kind of assumptions are bad and very unportable. I can think of > targets > were pa and va are going to be bigger than 48bits. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug. >
