search for: 1da75407

Hi Renato, On 08/01/13 17:16, Renato Golin wrote: > After looking at the Livermore for a while, we found the issue that was causing > LTO to produce a different result. > > Consider the code below [1]. setup() doesn't touch bar/baz, main() doesn't > reference foo. LTO finds, correctly, I don't think this is correct. At the LLVM IR level it is valid to write into bar

...0; i++) >> printf("%d ", S.baz[i]); >> puts(""); >> >> return 0; >> } >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130108/1da75407/attachment.html>

After looking at the Livermore for a while, we found the issue that was causing LTO to produce a different result. Consider the code below [1]. setup() doesn't touch bar/baz, main() doesn't reference foo. LTO finds, correctly, that it can remove the setup(), but the result is different. The code is clearly wrong, but the compiler has no right to fix user's stupidity, even at that