This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Performance regression
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:51:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: Performance regression
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> The above transformation is also valid (for C and C++) if nothing is known
> about the upper bound, as for the equalitity of p1 and p2 to not hold it
> is necessary that a wrap around happens in one of the increments, which is
> undefined for signed ints.
I think the standard just says that it's implementation defined, and then
mutters something about the implementation having to do something
reasonable...
R.