--- Comment #6 from gary at intrepid dot com 2010-01-21 21:33 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> >Just to be clear, what aspect of the test case is undefined?
>
> The access of the integer variable via an union. That is the whole point of
> strict aliasing :).
I thought that might be what
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-21 20:56 ---
>Just to be clear, what aspect of the test case is undefined?
The access of the integer variable via an union. That is the whole point of
strict aliasing :).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4283
--- Comment #4 from gary at intrepid dot com 2010-01-21 20:54 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This is by design since the code is undefined.
Just to be clear, what aspect of the test case is undefined?
In any event, my suggestion is only that the warning be enabled in the case
that inli
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-21 19:41 ---
This is by designed since the code is undefined.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from gary at intrepid dot com 2010-01-21 16:30 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=19682)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19682&action=view) [edit]
> Test case to demonstate interaction between inlining and strict-aliasing
> optimiz
--- Comment #1 from gary at intrepid dot com 2010-01-21 16:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=19682)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19682&action=view)
Test case to demonstate interaction between inlining and strict-aliasing
optimization
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
