On Sep 14, 2005, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:15:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Yep, it was pointer subtraction, and GCC actually optimized the
division, that could in theory be assumed to be exact, into a
multiplication by a large constant (aah, the
On Sep 13, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This bit binutils, in the form of a crash in a hash function on
Solaris. I think that was pointer subtraction, rather than comparison,
however.
Perhaps someone who remembers this problem more clearly than
I do can chip in if I've
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:15:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Sep 13, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This bit binutils, in the form of a crash in a hash function on
Solaris. I think that was pointer subtraction, rather than comparison,
however.
Perhaps someone
chris jefferson wrote:
I realise that according to the C++ standard it isn't legal to compare
two pointers which are not from the same array. Is anyone aware of
anything in g++ which would actually forbid this, and if there is any
way of checking if will be valid?
In my opinion we should first
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Then, as far as *our* library (and compiler) are concerned, there is the
interesting example of basic_string::_M_disjunct: with Nathan's
substantive insight we came to the conclusion that such kind of
comparisons can be always meaningful to do (at the C++ library level) if
we
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:22:18AM +0100, chris jefferson wrote:
I realise that according to the C++ standard it isn't legal to compare
two pointers which are not from the same array. Is anyone aware of
anything in g++ which would actually forbid this, and if there is any
way of checking if
