This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] dead const/pure/alloca call removal
On 09 Nov 2003 07:21:30 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> writes:
> | The implementation provides malloc; GCC is merely a part of the
> | implementation. We already assume a conforming library for many
> | optimizations; glibc doesn't provide strlen either.
> Sure, but isn't a tracing malloc a conforming implementation?
AFAIK replacing malloc at all is nonconforming. It just happens to work on
most Unix systems.
> | I disagree that the C standard's definition is too weak to allow
> | eliding of calls, as-if. What problems do you see?
> The as-if would apply *if* GCC is the malloc implementation provider.
> Currently , it is not,
That doesn't matter. GCC can assume the semantics described in the C
standard unless -fno-builtin.
Why do you see this as different from strlen?