From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12684 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2010 11:48:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 12674 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jan 2010 11:48:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FH_DATE_PAST_20XX,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:48:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o01BlwGq003948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:47:58 -0500 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o01BltWw008979; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:47:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4B3DE0EA.5060302@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:48:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Followup-To: GCC-help, To: Andris Kalnozols CC: gcc Subject: Re: gcc-2.95 OK, gcc-{3,4}.X not OK References: <201001010544.VAA00734@nasdaq.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <201001010544.VAA00734@nasdaq.hpl.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-01/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 [redir to gcc-help] On 01/01/2010 05:44 AM, Andris Kalnozols wrote: > If the bug was a basic programming error, one would expect a > runtime failure (dereferencing a NULL pointer) no matter which > compiler was used. I would not expect that, and I have no idea whay you would. Undefined behaviour can happen in any way: maybe the program appears to run correctly, maybe it faults. > The application compiles cleanly with no warnings using "-Wall". > Were there any transition issues with the newer gcc compilers of > which I may not be aware? No. As you've done the obvious first stage (using -Wall) you now should run your program under Valgrind, assuming that it is available on your system. Andrew.