On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 06:17:43PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
The point is -exactly- to codify the current state of affairs.
Ah, I see, so it's not yet about creating a more useful (for compilers,
that is) model.
There are several
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 04:22:38PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I'm not sure... you'd require the compiler to perform static analysis of
loops to determine the state of the machine when they exit (if they
exit!)
in order to show
Hi,
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I'm not sure... you'd require the compiler to perform static analysis of
loops to determine the state of the machine when they exit (if they exit!)
in order to show whether or not a dependency is carried to subsequent
operations. If it
Hi,
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
The point is -exactly- to codify the current state of affairs.
Ah, I see, so it's not yet about creating a more useful (for compilers,
that is) model.
char * fancy_assign (char *in) { return in; }
...
char *x, *y;
x =
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:54:51PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 05/20/2015 04:46 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
I'm not sure... you'd require the compiler to perform static analysis of
loops to determine the state of the machine when they exit (if they exit!)
in order to show whether or not a
