https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
--- Comment #11 from Thiago Macieira ---
May also be related to why GCC produces warnings about uninitialised memory -
Bug 100115
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||madhur4127 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern dot
ch
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cfsteefel at arista dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
GIMPLE doesn't know about calling conventions, that's something that only
"appears" during expansion to RTL.
Still, I don't claim to understand what is going on here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
--- Comment #4 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Ah, I see. Didn't think there was a constructor involved and/or that GIMPLE
would keep it implicit like this...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
For a self-contained version, see below. Notice how the extra constructor in
_Optional_payload_base changes the generated code, or storing directly a
_Optional_payload_base instead of _Optional_payload in optio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
11 matches
Mail list logo
