https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81935
Bug ID: 81935
Summary: [8 Regression] r251260 miscompiles libstdc++ (on
ppc64le)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
Bug ID: 81936
Summary: ICE in dwarf2out_die_ref_for_decl, at dwarf2out.c:5543
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81937
Bug ID: 81937
Summary: stack-buffer-overflow on memcpy in
libgfortran/io/unix.c on character(kind=4)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81938
Bug ID: 81938
Summary: valgrind error message and heap-buffer-overflow on
address sanitized libgfortran.so
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81939
Bug ID: 81939
Summary: valgrind error message in build_float_string and
heap-buffer-overflow on address sanitized
libgfortran.so
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81911
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81932
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
How do I reproduce, aka configure gcc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #2 from Matthieu Brucher ---
No, I think the optimization is more than correct.
The warning doesn't warn of the actual problem, if you check against nullptr,
you won't even get a warning.
Comparing this to anything from Null to null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
ICE is due to assert:
...
at gcc/dwarf2out.c:5542
5542 gcc_assert (die->die_tag == DW_TAG_compile_unit
5543 && die->die_id.die_symbol != NULL);
...
The assert triggers because die->d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthieu Brucher from comment #2)
> Comparing this to anything from Null to nullptr should be an error, not be
> silently passed.
No, it can't be rejected, because it's valid code. Just like "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> How do I reproduce, aka configure gcc?
The ICE is actually in the host compiler, but it doesn't seem to reproduce in a
non-offloading setup.
Host compiler:
OFF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #4 from Matthieu Brucher ---
I would agree if the debug and optimized versions had the same behavior. They
do not. As such there should be a huge warning about the undefined behavior.
And no, it's not valid code, it's an undefined b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
Bug ID: 81940
Summary: [8 regression] internal compiler error: in
dwarf2out_abstract_function, at dwarf2out.c:21613
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
$ g++ -fpreprocessed -Werror -Wall -Wextra -flto -O -std=c++98 x.ii -fpic -DPIC
-c -o x.o && g++ -shared x.o -g -flto -o x.so
during IPA pass: inline
/home/dimhen/src/CSPbuild/ipsec/esp/esp_init.cpp: I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81941
Bug ID: 81941
Summary: Rejects intrinsic use
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
$ cat x.ii
int a, b = a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r251301 FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81941
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Alternatively:
> gcc-7 -S t.c -m32 -mno-sse
In file included from t.c:1:0:
t.c: In function ‘foo’:
/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/7/include/xmmintrin.h:932:1: error: inlining
failed in call to always_inl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Bug ID: 81942
Summary: ICE on empty constexpr constructor with C++14
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
> what failed to properly set its parent?
dwarf2out_early_finish contains:
...
/* Do not generate DWARF assembler now when not producing LTO bytecode. */
if (!flag_generate_lto)
return;
...
and this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
>
> --- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
> > what failed to properly set its parent?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On gcc110.fsffrance.org, I see gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-1.c failing with
an execution error with a simple stage1 compiler. Perhaps this is a different
problem, but it can be distilled to:
int
main (vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81943
Bug ID: 81943
Summary: Wrong ABI in class methods returning structs for the
Windows amd64 target
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed with that testcase, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Wed Aug 23 11:32:47 2017
New Revision: 251303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-23 Tamar Christina
PR middle-end/19706
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Wed Aug 23 11:34:59 2017
New Revision: 251304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-23 Tamar Christina
PR middle-end/19706
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
The problem here is that get_nonzero_bits() is being called with an SSA whose
precision is 0 (_Complex float). This is causing this code in
get_nonzero_bits():
range_info_def *ri = SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO (n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81932
--- Comment #2 from Paul Smith ---
Created attachment 42029
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42029&action=edit
tvtest.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79890
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Kre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
> The problem here is that get_nonzero_bits() is being called with an SSA
> whose precision is 0 (_Complex float). This is causing this code in
> get_nonzero_bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81932
--- Comment #3 from Paul Smith ---
Created attachment 42030
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42030&action=edit
tv.py
Test case attached. To run it:
$ gcc -ggdb3 -o tvtest tvtest.cpp
$ gdb tvtest -ex 'br 28' -ex 'source tv.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
FWIW, the reason a cross x86-64 to ppc64 doesn't exhibit the problem may be
because
wi::shwi (-1, precision) calls sext_hwi() which eventually shifts left by 64
bits:
int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so we have no early debug but enable late debug. I suppose at some point
we want to have -g vs. -g0 set per function.
Index: gcc/dwarf2out.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> I suppose the idea was to make nonzero_bits foolproof. And -1 being
> sign-extended should be fine... unless precision is 0 ;)
>
> So, in nonzero_bits use TY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81944
Bug ID: 81944
Summary: constexpr std::distance
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 23 12:11:03 2017
New Revision: 251306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-23 Richard Biener
PR lto/81940
* dwarf2out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80681
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80733
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
Bug ID: 81945
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> Ah, yeah. And we can have both, right?
I'd say so. There's f.i. libgomp.c/target-9.c, which contains '#pragma omp
target' and uses -flto.
> So we'd either n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81642
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> but found it doesn't work because flag_generate_offload is actually false.
>
> I'm now trying this (code snippet copied from symbol_table::compile), but
> I'm not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79996
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
>
> --- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
>
> --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56556
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> > And then we run into the next ICE:
> Shit happens ;)
Heh, it does :)
> Is that now the offload compiler?
Nope, still the host compiler, we're ICE-ing d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81944
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81912
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexbaroni68 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68827
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
Bug ID: 81946
Summary: runtime.inc:782:28: error: field ‘__sem_lock’ has
incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78330
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
What is the full definition of the failing struct in the generated runtime.inc
file? That is, look at line 782 of TARGET/libgo/runtime.inc and show us the
complete type definition. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81947
Bug ID: 81947
Summary: variadic template specialization doesn't compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78388
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81948
Bug ID: 81948
Summary: vectorize exp2 using exp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r251306 PASS for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81949
Bug ID: 81949
Summary: DOM fails to simplify conditional
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
Bug ID: 81950
Summary: _GLIBCXX17 macro not used consistently
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
Judy Ward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|_GLIBCXX17 macro not used |_GLIBCXX17_INLINEmacro not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
Created attachment 42031
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42031&action=edit
generated runtime.inc
contains the incomplete type __sem_lock.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #3 from martin ---
The ‘__sem_lock’ struct is contained in:
struct semt {
struct __pthread_fastlock __sem_lock;
int32_t __sem_value;
void* __sem_waiting;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56763
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81951
Bug ID: 81951
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE returning 16 byte struct on s390x
with -mno-lra
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80598
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59922
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80503
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81952
Bug ID: 81952
Summary: copy elision used when constructor needs to be called
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Fixes testcase. Untested otherwise.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssanames.c b/gcc/tree-ssanames.c
> index 676
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
Bug ID: 81953
Summary: Code sinking results in increased use of callee saved
registers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries ---
I've tried to see if I could workaround the problem by disabling the assert:
...
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
index 0c339bd46f0..b2df3b89c2e 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81449
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
*** Bug 81946 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 23, 2017 6:52:40 PM GMT+02:00, "vries at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
>
>--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries ---
>I've tried to see if I co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81954
Bug ID: 81954
Summary: gcc8 too aggressively reorders memory access beyond
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81954
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81947
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #5 from martin ---
I'm sorry for the trouble, I thought Bugfix 81449 is contained in the gcc 7.2.
release of Aug 14, 2017.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It will be in GCC 8 but nobody backported it to the GCC 7 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #6 from Matthieu Brucher ---
I never said that the test alone should be banned. Please read the original
message first.
I said that if(!this) in the context of a method gives "unexpected" behavior
(according to the standard and the di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Matthieu Brucher from comment #6)
> I never said that the test alone should be banned. Please read the original
> message first.
I had done so before I replied. And it seems that I'm not the on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #8 from Matthieu Brucher ---
In a header:
class Foo
{
public:
void bar();
};
Inthe corresponding source:
#include
void Foo::bar()
{
if(this)
{
std::cout << "Pointer is not null";
}
else
{
std::cout << "Pointer i
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
