This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?
- From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus at futureapps dot de>
- To: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:12:34 +0200
- Subject: Re: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?
- References: <BEFD487E.AD59%schlie@comcast.net>
Paul Schlie wrote:
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
Paul Schlie wrote:
From: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
this would mean you could not put local variables in
registers. the effect on code quality woul be awful!
Why would anyone care about the performance of an access to an
un-initialized variable?
You can have both, correctness and uninitialised local
variables. For an impression of the difference in performance,
- which predominantly illustrates the effect of volatile semantics?
I was looking for a way to stop GCC from using registers,
as I wanted to see one of the above mentioned effects
on code quality. Hence volatile.
-- Georg