From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E7A5A3858283; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 10:18:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E7A5A3858283 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1663669109; bh=rDmXm3H3yQOX39vqT4bAgh9dilNsHoIeiB8fn/sxpn0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Y5MhQeSjLDoyAFIaLufWpyU6umteLqvgGYY1PT+3sy3VTl77ojPWXGWtAzgFhlS8j 0xpTliDY/u3MNOlk7LYycrFHcv29z+i+zQgugFvndM1uE6Fw4e8SGvsRkz0Mebseb9 WA7kTAtO80ivz7kSNCpXenfYilJQgyuEWK0BDx0E= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/106965] g++ optimization removes assigning 0 to deleted pointer- causes double free. Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 10:18:29 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106965 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Boaz from comment #4) > which is a good practice as far as I know. Not really, because it's dead code and typically optimized away anyway. It's better to use static analysis tools, or dynamic analysis like ASan.=