Actually SPEC 2006 is broken if you read the blog post correctly and GCC 4.8
just exposes it.
Thanks,
Andrew
From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org
[linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] on behalf of Mans Rullgard
On 23 March 2013 18:08, Pinski, Andrew andrew.pin...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
Actually SPEC 2006 is broken if you read the blog post correctly and
GCC 4.8 just exposes it.
Yes, that might be why Mans' subject line applies the adjective
'broken' to 'SPEC 2006' :-) [also, for completeness:
On 23 March 2013 18:51, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 23 March 2013 18:08, Pinski, Andrew andrew.pin...@caviumnetworks.com
wrote:
Actually SPEC 2006 is broken if you read the blog post correctly and
GCC 4.8 just exposes it.
Yes, that might be why Mans' subject line
On 23 March 2013 20:18, Renato Golin renato.go...@linaro.org wrote:
On 23 March 2013 18:58, Mans Rullgard mans.rullg...@linaro.org wrote:
The thing is, those of us who are careful when writing code actually
want these optimisations. The more information the compiler can
infer from the code,
On 23 March 2013 20:32, Mans Rullgard mans.rullg...@linaro.org wrote:
foo.c:1: warning: statement may not have intended effect
Or automatically open pages like these on the user's browser:
http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html
http://lwn.net/Articles/250967/
