https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #31 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #30) > Now that I think again, I'm not even sure we would regress. > My concern was that the data would remain NULL after the realloc(NULL, 0), > and the argument would not be seen as present. With the second temporary, > all is well. OK, I'll add that variant to the testcases. Better safe than sorry... ;-) > That's all there is. OK, I'll then package it.
