From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-29291-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14320 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2003 16:46:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14305 invoked by uid 71); 12 Feb 2003 16:46:00 -0000
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:46:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030212164600.14304.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
Subject: Re: optimization/9052: in C code, "if" statement fails to execute 
 if optimized
Reply-To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00528.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR optimization/9052; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
        nobody@gcc.gnu.org, phama@webjockey.net,
        Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
Subject: Re: optimization/9052: in C code, "if" statement fails to execute 
 if optimized
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:36:37 +0000

 > > So in summary, almost certainly "not a bug".
 > 
 > Pfewww, good.
 > 
 > Still it is a change in behavior of the generated code.  Should it be
 > documented?
 
 What would you document? 
 
 "Our optimizations are better than they used to be, so if your code is 
 broken, we're more likely to catch you out"?
 
 In reality this is not much different from a expression like
 
 	x[i++] = y[i++] + 1;
 
 It's ill-defined code, so anything can happen.
 
 R.