public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/45249] Indirect variable parameters sometimes cause segmentation fault
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:02:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100811210243.15170.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-45249-19547@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #31 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-11 21:02 -------
>Didn't you understand the equivalent code would be:
No, as the variables act the same if they are automatic variables or arguments.
there is no different between the two. That has been my point from the
beginning.
I think it is time for me to end my part and say please follow up to the C
standards news group as we are going in circles as a misunderstanding about ABI
and how arguments are passed have no concern to what the C standard says about
variables (automatic and arguments) and the size of an array for an address of
one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45249
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-11 21:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-10 21:55 [Bug c++/45249] New: " rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-10 22:03 ` [Bug c++/45249] " rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-10 22:04 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-10 22:04 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-10 22:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-10 22:33 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-10 22:36 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-10 23:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 0:55 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 0:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 1:57 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 3:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 11:21 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 11:21 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 11:22 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 11:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 11:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 11:55 ` redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 13:12 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 14:10 ` redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 16:11 ` matz at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 17:04 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 17:15 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 17:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 17:57 ` redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 19:51 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 19:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 20:04 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 20:07 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 20:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 20:58 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 21:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2010-08-11 21:12 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 21:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 21:27 ` redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 22:17 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 22:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 22:35 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:37 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 22:50 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:51 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:52 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:53 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:54 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:54 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:55 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 22:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-11 23:22 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-11 23:43 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-12 2:08 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-12 2:10 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-12 2:11 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-12 2:12 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-12 2:13 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-12 8:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-12 10:17 ` rogerio at rilhas dot com
2010-08-12 10:18 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100811210243.15170.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).