https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
Markus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Clang has a similar (same?) option to disable optimization around null pointers
which is enabled for arm too. Just in the case of this source, gcc causes a
trap to happen after deferencing a null pointer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
Markus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
> On ARM Targets address zero is almost always a normal memory address.
That is definitely not true at all because you can run Linux on it with a mmmu
and address zero (a null pointer) is not a valid addres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
More over a null pointer is still an invalid pointer in C even if your bare
metal target might just happen to have a valid memory address at 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
