This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/77686] [6/7 Regression] wrong code on arm-linux-gnueabi and arm-linux-gnueabihf
- From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:13:06 +0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/77686] [6/7 Regression] wrong code on arm-linux-gnueabi and arm-linux-gnueabihf
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-77686-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77686
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Btw, what I fail to find is sth in the (C) standard that specifies the
semantics of an aggregate assignment of union type. Thus I interpret it to use
the
effective type of the object (determined by the last access) and thus only
transfer the active object (so a union aggregate copy is _not_ a bytewise
copy of size sizeof (union type)).