From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25084 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2005 00:32:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 25062 invoked by uid 48); 3 Dec 2005 00:32:26 -0000 Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20051203003226.25061.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/25235] byte swapping unreliable in optimized builds In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "cdfrey at netdirect dot ca" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00275.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #2 from cdfrey at netdirect dot ca 2005-12-03 00:32 ------- Thanks for the info! I can understand the examples in the article at http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2003/08/11/0001.html but with my example source code in this bug report, I can't seem to follow the optimization path that results in what I'm seeing. I understand that the optimizer can ignore duplicated code, or unnecessary code, but conv and d2 need to be initialized somehow, and if the compiler doesn't use the code that's there, what does it use? A warning would be really nice. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25235