Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 82681

Summary: gcc warning on possible code problem is issuedinconstently
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Michael Marxmeier <mike>
Component: gcc3Assignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 8.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-01-24 20:54:11 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Michael Marxmeier 2003-01-24 20:51:27 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030119

Description of problem:
Two problems with gcc-3.2-7

1. gcc miscompiles my code (which might be a bordercase
   but is accepted with all other compilers i've tested

2. gcc issues a warning in non-optimizing mode but not 
   when -O is present.

Stupid example is below ...

--- a.c ---
#include <stdio.h>
#include <ctype.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
        char *p;

        p = argv[1];
                *p++ = toupper(*p);
        printf("%s\n", argv[1]);
        return 0;
--- end a.c ---

$ cc -Wall a.c
a.c: In function `main':
a.c:11: warning: operation on `p' may be undefined
$ ./a.out hallo
$ cc -Wall -O a.c
./a.out hallo

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
see above

Additional info:

Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2003-01-24 20:54:11 UTC
Your code triggers undefined behaviour, and as such gcc can do anything it wants
with it.

Comment 2 Michael Marxmeier 2003-01-24 21:35:40 UTC
As i wrote above, it might be undefined behavior and 
i'm not arguing that (it's just likely to break lots
of existing code).

However (IMHO) gcc should issue the warning consistently
if -Wall is present. I've seen a number of cases where the 
warning was not issued, with -O used.

I'm not pushing this but please consider to reopen the bug
for the issue #2 (warning) - i've updated the subject