--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-17 21:24
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > - yes, however as the loigical extention of:
> >"a null reference is undefined" => "may trap" => "will trap"
> >is simply wrong, and is not justify
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-05-17 12:30
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> - yes, however as the loigical extention of:
>"a null reference is undefined" => "may trap" => "will trap"
>is simply wrong, and is not justifyable; such an optimization
>is ta
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ericw at evcohs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Additional Comments From chaac at nic dot fi 2005-05-10 08:41 ---
Sorry about wrong mailing list pointer :)
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/avr-gcc-list/2005-05/index.html
Here is correct URL :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-10 08:31
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> see comment #1 ...
>
> you already derefenced the pointer in ppv (in the line
> unsigned long lv = *lvp;
> )
>
> so the compiler assumes that anohter NULL ptr check is not n
--- Additional Comments From chaac at nic dot fi 2005-05-10 08:06 ---
In AVR's reading memory address 0 is valid thing though. In a way I can
understand why to optimization in x86 but shouldn't this be disabled by default
on AVR's?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214
--- Additional Comments From chaac at nic dot fi 2005-05-10 08:00 ---
Andrew,
Here is a pointer to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
Topic started on May 08, 2005 with subject "WinAVR 20050214 (gcc 3.4.3) and
optimizer bug."
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-05-10
06:31 ---
see comment #1 ...
you already derefenced the pointer in ppv (in the line
unsigned long lv = *lvp;
)
so the compiler assumes that anohter NULL ptr check is not needed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-09 23:19
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think this is a bug since conf and ppv cannot be null as you
> deferenced them already
> and would trap on most machines. (there is another bug about this recently
> filed t
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||21305
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
22:32 ---
Oh, one more thing, deferencing a null pointer is undefined by the C standard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
22:31 ---
Do you have a pointer to the mail on that list?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
22:28 ---
I don't think this is a bug since conf and ppv cannot be null as you deferenced
them already and would
trap on most machines. (there is another bug about this recently filed too).
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
13 matches
Mail list logo
