This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c/63645] Incorrect code generation
- From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:28:49 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c/63645] Incorrect code generation
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-63645-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63645
--- Comment #23 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Let's consider if in #c11 you change:
> GnmExprBinary *res = malloc (sizeof (GnmExprBinary));
> res->oper = op;
> return (GnmExpr*)res;
> to:
> GnmExpr *res = malloc (sizeof (GnmExprBinary));
> res->binary.oper = op;
> return res;
> is that also invalid? I think that pretty much models what GCC does in its
That's one of the poorly defined cases where it's not clear which object
is relevant.