This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 05 Jan 2002 14:48:00 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <20020103011709.GV1803@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> <20020103002935.GT1803@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> <20020103020358.G19933@xs4all.nl> <20020103011709.GV1803@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> <20020103184414.D20936@xs4

jtv@xs4all.nl (jtv)  wrote on 03.01.02 in <20020103184414.D20936@xs4all.nl>:

> The arithmetic can't be helped--agreed.

Not agreed. It *can* be helped. It might not be pretty, but it is  
possible. And after eliminating that, *any* future gcc optimization can no  
longer break it (assuming it is otherwise correct, of course).

All of this mess is a consequence of lying to the compiler. The solution  
is rather obvious: don't do that.

MfG Kai

References:
- Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
  - From: Tom Rini
- Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
  - From: Tom Rini
- Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
  - From: jtv
- Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
  - From: jtv

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