From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23538 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2002 13:31:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23519 invoked by uid 61); 5 Aug 2002 13:31:50 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 06:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020805133150.23518.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: eric.paire@ri.silicomp.fr, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org, eric.paire@ri.silicomp.fr, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/7465: Same function produced bad ARM code with C++ but correct one with C X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: Same function produced bad ARM code with C++ but correct one with C State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: rearnsha State-Changed-When: Mon Aug 5 06:31:50 2002 State-Changed-Why: That this code does not fail for C is luck rather than anything else. Your code violates the aliasing rules of both languages, see the manual under -fstrict-aliasing for details of how, why and how you might avoid the problem. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7465