From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id EAC0D3858C60; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 15:10:33 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EAC0D3858C60 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1675955433; bh=Jir4Jslf4WBM3OARwqwHmsMwObhO1BtS8f3g+nCCB7I=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XRtefET7a5DWB+HH1i2pn6405IDUf84OW/ABIoH30rOQNSQATuyZ7LOSS+HOp5T1X 7HyvYuVjiIOl1wbN4hGCarPE7fPVPMoa1SlcvDdKNDTkIjNoc3XXwwGV30XNbXfn4b emDkqQJ+Z0ib4qFJgO8VNhkTh7MdUtbbXOWBkxj0= From: "dcb314 at hotmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/108718] [10/11/12/13 Regression] csmith: possible bad code with -O2 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 15:10:33 +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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dcb314 at hotmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.5 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=3D108718 --- Comment #4 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > This also changes with -fno-strict-aliasing ... So does that mean that csmith is producing C code with UB and so this bug isn't valid ? It might also mean that all future uses of csmith I make must have -fno-strict-aliasing.=