-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @andreasdotorg
It kinda makes sense since it's the only valid initialization possible, and idempotent (so make neverCalled() a nop). But a segfault better.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BruceHoult
Indeed, I can see how the compiler got there. But I kind of wish there was a C compiler that flatly refuses to build undefined code.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
I can't edit the code on my phone :-( Any change if you explicitly initialize to zero? (I'd think not) Does gcc do the same?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @andreasdotorg
Telling clang to compile as C changes nothing, which is weird as I don't know what could call NeverCalled without static constructors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BruceHoult
I think the logic only collects all value setters, disregarding callability of setter sites.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
But making the function static (no possibility of unseen callers) changes the tail call of system() to unconditional "crash me".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This might be a side effect of unreachable code elimination.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.