https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23358
Richard Smith <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED CC| |[email protected] Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #4 from Richard Smith <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #3) > What I'm saying is that since I've been using clang, the clang definition of > undefined behavior was to throw a floating point exception That is not correct. Clang does not define this particular undefined behavior, and never did. It is the nature of undefined behavior that sometimes you'll see it behaving in some predictable way, but that does not make it defined. [In the original testcase, we are in fact preserving the two volatile loads of l, and if they produce different answers, we will correctly compute the value of v.] See http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________ LLVMbugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmbugs
