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: Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?

From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
To: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:13:38 -0800
Subject: Re: Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?
References: <BFDD8245.C8D5%schlie@comcast.net>

On Jan 1, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Paul Schlie wrote:

- x[y] = 0;
  if (x[y]) y = y+1;

And how does this differ from the portable code in which x points to volatile data? If none, what are the advantages in being able to write non-portable code that leaves the volatile out over standard conforming code with the volatile in?

References:
- Re: Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?
  - From: Paul Schlie

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