On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 3:43 AM Jonas Maebe wrote:
> The snippet came from the compiled program. It showed that the "while
> true do ;" infinite loop got removed by the peephole optimiser (as also
> mentioned by Martin). That was wrong. The peephole optimiser does not
> perform any dead code anal
Am 13.10.19 um 01:54 schrieb Ben Grasset:
I guess this doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things, but
I'm somewhat confused by it, so I thought I'd ask.
Specifically, the reporter of that issue, calling themselves
"Alexander", used the following program as an "example" of what they
On 2019-10-13 01:54, Ben Grasset wrote:
I guess this doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things, but
I'm somewhat confused by it, so I thought I'd ask.
Specifically, the reporter of that issue, calling themselves
"Alexander", used the following program as an "example" of what they
On 13/10/2019 01:54, Ben Grasset wrote:
I guess this doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things,
but I'm somewhat confused by it, so I thought I'd ask.
Specifically, the reporter of that issue, calling themselves
"Alexander", used the following program as an "example" of what they
On 10/12/19 7:54 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:
Generally speaking, I would expect any compiler that is *capable* of realizing
that the while loop has zero chance of *ever being entered at all* in the first
place to remove the loop from its final codegen entirely, because there's no
logical reason for
