https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Froyd ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Nathan Froyd from comment #5)
> > This also showed up in the context of trying to hint to the compiler that
> > placement new didn't need null check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nathan Froyd from comment #5)
> This also showed up in the context of trying to hint to the compiler that
> placement new didn't need null checks:
That's only become true quite recently:
http:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Froyd ---
FWIW, clang (>= 3.5) understands how to optimize the original testcase in
comment 0; it even issues a -Wtautological-undefined-compare warning.
This also showed up in the context of trying to hint to the comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-13
18:19:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> References are just like pointers, just &a is really a and a is really *a.
This is wrong in so many ways.
Pointers can be null, pointers can be uninitial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-13
17:56:32 UTC ---
Why do you think this is a missed optimization and/or diagnostic?
References are just like pointers, just &a is really a and a is really *a.
