On 2022/8/26 4:15 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2022/8/4 9:31 PM, Koning, Paul wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2022, at 9:17 AM, Chung-Lin Tang <clt...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2022/6/28 10:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:47:59PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>>>> with the way that chunk_size < 1 is handled for gomp_iter_dynamic_next:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) chunk_size <= -1: wraps into large unsigned value, seems to work
>>>>> though.
>>>>> (2) chunk_size == 0: infinite loop
>>>>>
>>>>> The (2) behavior is obviously not desired. This patch fixes this by
>>>>> changing
>>>> Why? It is a user error, undefined behavior, we shouldn't slow down valid
>>>> code for users who don't bother reading the standard.
>>>
>>> This is loop init code, not per-iteration. The overhead really isn't that
>>> much.
>>>
>>> The question should be, if GCC having infinite loop behavior is reasonable,
>>> even if it is undefined in the spec.
>>
>> I wouldn't think so. The way I see "undefined code" is that you can't
>> complain about "wrong code" produced by the compiler. But for the compiler
>> to malfunction on wrong input is an entirely differerent matter. For one
>> thing, it's hard to fix your code if the compiler fails. How would you
>> locate the offending source line?
>>
>> paul
>
> Ping?
Ping x2.
