This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: ABI change for ports with byte-aligned functions.

To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: ABI change for ports with byte-aligned functions.
From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Date: 06 May 2001 18:32:08 -0300
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, nathan at codesourcery dot com
Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
References: <200105040654.f446sEL07964@thief.cygnus.com><or66fhq6g5.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><200105042128.OAA01365@geoffk.org><or1yq2dxts.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><200105062127.OAA05744@geoffk.org>

On May  6, 2001, Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> wrote:

> Can you explain why it is safe for the compiler to assume that some
> bits in a pointer are zero when in fact they might not be?

I can't think of a case in which it would make any difference that
wouldn't invoke undefined behavior.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ABI change for ports with byte-aligned functions.
  - From: Geoff Keating

References:
- ABI change for ports with byte-aligned functions.
  - From: Geoffrey Keating
- Re: ABI change for ports with byte-aligned functions.
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: ABI change for ports with byte-aligned functions.
  - From: Geoff Keating
- Re: ABI change for ports with byte-aligned functions.
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: ABI change for ports with byte-aligned functions.
  - From: Geoff Keating

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