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: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99?

From: Patrick Horgan <phorgan1 at yahoo dot com>
To: Nick Stoughton <nick at msbit dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Joshua Haberman <jhaberman at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:19:08 -0800
Subject: Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99?
References: <loom.20100103T063932-636@post.gmane.org> <84fc9c001001030253g4911a5ebi97aab621b7505449@mail.gmail.com> <4B40E26C.7070802@yahoo.com> <1262802034.7905.4993.camel@apbt.msbit.com>
Reply-to: phorgan1 at yahoo dot com

Nick Stoughton wrote:

Herb is C++ ...

The C1x timetable has us finishing the draft for an initial ballot this
summer (the April Florence meeting being the last chance to submit new
material). The best expert I know on the type based aliasing stuff is
Clark Nelson at Intel (clark.nelson@intel.com). We did spend a
considerable amount of time at the recent Santa Cruz meeting discussing
this subject ... see N1409 and N1422 (the minutes including a summary of
the discussion on N1409).
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1409.htm

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1422.pdf

I've read these, and while they deal with the same section of the standard, the issues are quite different.

Patrick

References:
- GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99?
  - From: Joshua Haberman
- Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99?
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99?
  - From: Patrick Horgan
- Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99?
  - From: Nick Stoughton

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