From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FAF8385802D for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 17:18:07 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 9FAF8385802D Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id om7so3771281pjb.5 for ; Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:18:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6dqM1TceVgM2NoBFN4myKqFXPCkoCV8GGV3GyGpRatc=; b=6NQ3Hz8M840+XHl+29DbHIdx/yJpIIOcluA6LtZ4Z3OxTHeQTyJ35QAhfHPzUGoWDx ov0HP9s75KBS3PQXUle/5GzwFtQhj/amrNPiOX9TA58W2OHhWGmF3+2SYeF05VepWGcU BiTHnQtGItbiOh+AzIa3l3l7Kr8vaPkI9gjQqE1S2/k/dhI0fjiYf2Y0Gnr02GeEs2ya PnYA5VZpRCIGhWW7wufuSaNwlZORpsDOCZ3bGx+PdN7OnlUEh3NAk0Ju+O9p6zh7GvHd KDC5ra4EESJT37J02Dl5vwMprXxuoterc7rZeucHTje8VMnSDzum/F/FsQfuGOmTJhP5 IYyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532izAKpwifu8nMN7T1tlPhRRvWJZdwKHEeYqm3WiFVq4CLW8vA6 W5u+71bq0Lq8m9KFosnlyHQDkSTwjXFcGKc7a1o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLfHZQkdriZ5dbiT/E1f2/txyRmb8PxwBms1GqcMyy/McGxNHTwFNHEThJ0LHQTmvAnVZTR9yUhn1IEKQi4Uk= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1bc6:: with SMTP id oa6mr2411329pjb.127.1644340686802; Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:18:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Krishna Narayanan Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 22:47:55 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Extended doubt regarding the bug 93432 To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: gcc-help X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-help mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 17:18:09 -0000 Thanks for your response,Could you please clarify if this is a bug? Regards, Krishna Narayanan. On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:28 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 16:25, Krishna Narayanan via Gcc-help < > gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> As an extension to the bug 93432 >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432), I would like to >> add a few more points,here in the given code >> (https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d) there is a warning averted but there >> is no warning shown for this code >> (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec) . >> I tried it with "-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv >> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations" and "fsanitize=undefined".There >> are no errors for gcc but clang has runtime errors,the error for >> clang: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E . >> >> Can we have a warning in the second case as well? It will be much more >> convenient as there is a lapse of initialization. >> > > Yes, ideally it would warn. > > >