This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: gcc 3.3 / i386 / -O2 question

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
Cc: Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>, 'Gerald Pfeifer' <gerald at pfeifer dot com>,'Beschorner Daniel' <Daniel dot Beschorner at facton dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:53:13 -0500
Subject: Re: gcc 3.3 / i386 / -O2 question
References: <NUTMEG0wzGDCvPeSHvn00000800@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411171411170.29201@wotan.suse.de>

Michael Matz wrote:

While it's true that with signed arithmetic we are allowed to simply
break, such behaviour can (and in this case indeed does) point out a real
problem in the optimizers, so its often a bit too hasty to ignore a
problem just because the source code is not totally conformant.


Interesting, though to be fair, David a couple of times said that it would
be a good idea to try this code again with unsigned :-)

References:
- RE: gcc 3.3 / i386 / -O2 question
  - From: Dave Korn
- RE: gcc 3.3 / i386 / -O2 question
  - From: Michael Matz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]