public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-11-12 20:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-13 1:24 ` sabre at nondot dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-12 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-12 20:05 -------
This is an easy extension on top of PR 20318. Mine.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|org |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-12 20:05 ` [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-13 1:24 ` sabre at nondot dot org
2005-11-13 2:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: sabre at nondot dot org @ 2005-11-13 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2005-11-13 01:24 -------
Is this safe? People can define their own operator new's, some of which may
return null...
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-12 20:05 ` [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-13 1:24 ` sabre at nondot dot org
@ 2005-11-13 2:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-13 2:13 ` sabre at nondot dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-13 2:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 02:10 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Is this safe? People can define their own operator new's, some of which may
> return null...
Yes because the normal operator new guarante not to return NULL by the C++
standard. And if it returns a NULL that is undefined behavior, it should be
throwing an exception when memory could not be allocated (there is a nonthrow
version which can and will return NULL).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-13 2:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-13 2:13 ` sabre at nondot dot org
2005-11-13 2:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: sabre at nondot dot org @ 2005-11-13 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from sabre at nondot dot org 2005-11-13 02:13 -------
> Yes because the normal operator new guarante not to return NULL by the C++
> standard.
Sure.
> And if it returns a NULL that is undefined behavior, it should be
> throwing an exception when memory could not be allocated (there is a nonthrow
> version which can and will return NULL).
Sure, fine, but you need not be calling the default/normal operator new. I can
define an overload for operator new in a different translation unit, or even by
dynamically loading a library with a different one. This is similar to
replacing malloc. AFAICT, the C++ std does not say that the replacement
operator new may not return null.
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-13 2:13 ` sabre at nondot dot org
@ 2005-11-13 2:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-13 2:51 ` sabre at nondot dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-13 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 02:24 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
>From 3.7.3/3:
Any allocation and/or deallocation functions defined in a C++ program shall
conform to the sematics specified in 3.7.3.1 and 3.7.3.2.
---
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-13 2:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-13 2:51 ` sabre at nondot dot org
2006-01-09 18:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: sabre at nondot dot org @ 2005-11-13 2:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from sabre at nondot dot org 2005-11-13 02:51 -------
yup, you're right. Great!
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-13 2:51 ` sabre at nondot dot org
@ 2006-01-09 18:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-08 21:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-10 23:33 ` ian at airs dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-09 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 18:33 -------
No longer working on this, I am too busy working on the gfortran front-end.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-09 18:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-08 21:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-10 23:33 ` ian at airs dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-08 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-08 21:40 -------
*** Bug 35878 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-08 21:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-10 23:33 ` ian at airs dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: ian at airs dot com @ 2008-04-10 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from ian at airs dot com 2008-04-10 23:33 -------
Note that bug 35878, which was closed as a duplicate of this one, was a case of
placement new. For placement new the check for a NULL pointer is particularly
useless, as the language standard says that placement new is required to return
the pointer which was passed in.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-03 23:57 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-11 11:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-11 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Bug 19476 depends on bug 20318, which changed state.
Bug 20318 Summary: RFE: add attribute to specify that a function never returns NULL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20318
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-03 23:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-03 23:57 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-11 11:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-03 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Done. Related cases are tracked in PR 35878 and PR 20318.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-03 16:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-03 23:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-03 23:57 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-11 11:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-03 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 3 23:48:18 2013
New Revision: 203194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-04 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
PR c++/19476
gcc/cp/
* decl.c (cxx_init_decl_processing): Set operator_new_flag.
gcc/testsuite/
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-5.C: New file.
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-1.C: Mention pr19476-5.C.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-5.C (with props)
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-1.C
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-5.C
('svn:eol-style' added)
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-5.C
('svn:keywords' added)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-09-11 14:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-03 16:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-03 23:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-03 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 3 16:13:54 2013
New Revision: 203163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203163&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-03 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
PR c++/19476
gcc/c-family/
* c.opt (fcheck-new): Move to common.opt.
gcc/
* common.opt (fcheck-new): Moved from c.opt. Make it 'Common'.
* calls.c (alloca_call_p): Use get_callee_fndecl.
* fold-const.c (tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p): Handle operator new.
* tree-vrp.c (gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p, stmt_interesting_for_vrp):
Likewise.
(vrp_visit_stmt): Remove duplicated code.
gcc/testsuite/
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-1.C: New file.
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-2.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-3.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-4.C: Likewise.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-1.C (with props)
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-2.C (with props)
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-3.C (with props)
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-4.C (with props)
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/c-family/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/c-family/c.opt
trunk/gcc/calls.c
trunk/gcc/common.opt
trunk/gcc/fold-const.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-vrp.c
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-1.C
('svn:eol-style' added)
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-1.C
('svn:keywords' added)
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-2.C
('svn:eol-style' added)
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-2.C
('svn:keywords' added)
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-3.C
('svn:eol-style' added)
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-3.C
('svn:keywords' added)
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-4.C
('svn:eol-style' added)
Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-4.C
('svn:keywords' added)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-09-11 13:20 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-09-11 14:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-03 16:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-09-11 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #15)
> However, note that it only optimizes the testcase from this PR if we add
> #include <new> at the beginning, otherwise the implicit declaration of
> operator new doesn't have its operator_new_flag set...
That can (and probably should, since this flag is also used in alias analysis)
be fixed with something like:
--- /data/repos/gcc/newnonzero/gcc/cp/decl.c (revision 202499)
+++ /data/repos/gcc/newnonzero/gcc/cp/decl.c (working copy)
@@ -3799,8 +3799,8 @@ cxx_init_decl_processing (void)
newtype = build_exception_variant (newtype, new_eh_spec);
deltype = cp_build_type_attribute_variant (void_ftype_ptr, extvisattr);
deltype = build_exception_variant (deltype, empty_except_spec);
- push_cp_library_fn (NEW_EXPR, newtype, 0);
- push_cp_library_fn (VEC_NEW_EXPR, newtype, 0);
+ DECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW (push_cp_library_fn (NEW_EXPR, newtype, 0)) = 1;
+ DECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW (push_cp_library_fn (VEC_NEW_EXPR, newtype, 0)) = 1;
global_delete_fndecl = push_cp_library_fn (DELETE_EXPR, deltype,
ECF_NOTHROW);
push_cp_library_fn (VEC_DELETE_EXPR, deltype, ECF_NOTHROW);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-09-06 16:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-06 17:31 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2013-09-11 13:20 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-11 14:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-09-11 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I posted a patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00676.html
However, note that it only optimizes the testcase from this PR if we add
#include <new> at the beginning, otherwise the implicit declaration of operator
new doesn't have its operator_new_flag set...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-09-06 16:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-09-06 17:31 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-11 13:20 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2013-09-06 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
In my experience, the only way to actually make progress on these old issues is
actually posting a patch even if incomplete, etc, in other terms the straw-man
approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_proposal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2013-09-06 16:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-06 17:31 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-09-06 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Without adding an attribute, can we identify those operator new that may not
return 0? Is DECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW && !TREE_NOTHROW good enough, or completely
wrong? I am basing this on:
"If the request succeeds, the value returned shall be a non-null pointer value
(4.10)"
"If an allocation function declared with a non-throwing exception-specification
(15.4) fails to allocate storage, it shall return a null pointer. Any other
allocation function that fails to allocate storage shall indicate failure only
by throwing an exception".
If the test is correct, adding one case to tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p,
gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p (and maybe others as well?) should be easy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
2005-01-17 4:54 [Bug c++/19476] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 6:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-03-04 15:40 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-03-04 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
2005-01-17 4:54 [Bug c++/19476] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-17 8:37 ` [Bug c++/19476] " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-17 15:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-20 6:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-04 15:40 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 6:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 06:29 -------
Diego raised some questions about this around the same time I filed it so confirmed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-20 06:29:09
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
2005-01-17 4:54 [Bug c++/19476] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-17 8:37 ` [Bug c++/19476] " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-17 15:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 6:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-04 15:40 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-17 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17 15:30 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Is this a regression?
Not that I know of.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |3.4.0 4.0.0 3.3.3 3.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new
2005-01-17 4:54 [Bug c++/19476] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-17 8:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-17 15:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-17 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17 08:37 -------
Is this a regression?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-10-11 11:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-19476-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-12 20:05 ` [Bug c++/19476] Missed null checking elimination with new pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-13 1:24 ` sabre at nondot dot org
2005-11-13 2:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-13 2:13 ` sabre at nondot dot org
2005-11-13 2:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-13 2:51 ` sabre at nondot dot org
2006-01-09 18:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-08 21:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-10 23:33 ` ian at airs dot com
[not found] <bug-19476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-09-06 16:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-06 17:31 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-11 13:20 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-11 14:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-03 16:14 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-03 23:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-03 23:57 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-11 11:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2005-01-17 4:54 [Bug c++/19476] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-17 8:37 ` [Bug c++/19476] " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-17 15:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 6:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-04 15:40 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).