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: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops

From: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <rask at sygehus dot dk>
To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
Cc: "'Andrew Pinski'" <pinskia at gmail dot com>, "'tbp'" <tbptbp at gmail dot com>, gcc at gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:05:49 +0200
Subject: Re: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops
References: <46CBC2E1.1010100@gmail.com> <de8d50360708220313u57ac96b8t45d0aafdca3eef59@mail.gmail.com> <009b01c7e4a7$518328d0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <de8d50360708220340y6bf51a91y458dcb13299808d8@mail.gmail.com> <009f01c7e4a9$e40d20a0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>

On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:47:52AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> 
>   Well, I like to think that I could cast the address to unsigned char*, memcpy a bunch of them to the address of an int, then dereference the int and the compiler would realise it was a no-op and optimise it away, but I doubt thatt would actually happen...

   It did a few months ago, at least for scalar variables. Have we
regressed in this area?

-- 
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen

Follow-Ups:
- RE: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops
  - From: Dave Korn

References:
- recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops
  - From: tbp
- Re: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- RE: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops
  - From: Dave Korn
- Re: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- RE: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops
  - From: Dave Korn

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