https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-01-19 00:00:00 |2025-9-1
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
void foo1()
{
char *a[4] = {nullptr, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr};
char **b = &a[4];
while (b!=&a[0])
{
b--;
if (*b) __builtin_free(*b);
}
}
```
size: 10-3, last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
--- Comment #4 from josephlawrie at hotmail dot com ---
> To let the compiler know that you want the standard operator delete (which
> does nothing on 0), I am not sure what should be done. It is a different
> issue, which you would need to ask abo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to josephlawrie from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> Am I correct in understanding this would not be possible without -fno-weak
> or when linking dynamically? In those cases,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
--- Comment #2 from josephlawrie at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> I don't think it has anything to do with glibc or weak. If I patch
> tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c (couldn't find a sufficient option or parameter) to
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UNCO
