https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103 > > --- Comment #10 from Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root at openwall dot com> --- > The case of assignment+memcpy -- testcases in comment 0, in pr92824 and > similar > -- is fixed. > > But the case of memset+assignment -- pr93270 and pr61872 (these seem to be > dups) -- is not fixed. Is it supposed to be fixed? > > Before, I've seen somewhat contradicting approaches in bug 92486, comment 12, > which says that memset+assignment should set padding in structs, and in bug > 93270, comment 4, which implies that memset+assignment shouldn't set padding > in > long double. I'm in no way trying to imply that memset+assignment should or > shouldn't be fixed, just wondering if there is a difference of two cases. I think if the user writes a long double store then padding becomes undefined so the testcase in comment#1 in PR61872 is technically undefined IMHO.
