https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
--- Comment #14 from James Molloy ---
Hi,
For completeness, I just fixed this in LLVM r235088
(http://reviews.llvm.org/rL235088).
Cheers,
James
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
James Molloy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james.molloy at arm dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #9 from James Molloy ---
OK, given your second example I agree that the usecase isn't quite as
pathological as I thought.
> I'm not saying I'll never accept a warning for this sort of code; but I'd need
convincing that it won't undul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #6 from James Molloy ---
Good example, although I might argue slightly pathological.
So in this case currently, GCC doesn't even implicitly promote the argument,
just uses it as-is. It seems a very dangerous behaviour to have as defa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #4 from James Molloy ---
Hi Richard,
My two-pennyworth for what it's worth - we've had several people with broken
code tripped by this bug, and Apple have reported seeing the same thing with
their internal codebases. This one seems o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
James Molloy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james.molloy at arm dot com
--- Comment
