On 30 Jan. 2018 3:35 pm, "Dave Airlie" wrote:
On 30 January 2018 at 06:33, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 30 January 2018 at 06:25, Gert Wollny wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 29.01.2018, 20:32 +0100 schrieb Roland Scheidegger:
>>>
>>> Am I correct
On 30 January 2018 at 06:33, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 30 January 2018 at 06:25, Gert Wollny wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 29.01.2018, 20:32 +0100 schrieb Roland Scheidegger:
>>>
>>> Am I correct assuming that for something like
>>>while (foo) {
>>> if
On 30 January 2018 at 06:25, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Am Montag, den 29.01.2018, 20:32 +0100 schrieb Roland Scheidegger:
>>
>> Am I correct assuming that for something like
>>while (foo) {
>> if (bar) {
>> do something;
>> } else {
>> /* nothing
Am Montag, den 29.01.2018, 20:32 +0100 schrieb Roland Scheidegger:
>
> Am I correct assuming that for something like
>while (foo) {
> if (bar) {
> do something;
> } else {
> /* nothing */
> }
>}
> The else clause wouldn't get optimized away neither?
>
Am 29.01.2018 um 13:15 schrieb Gert Wollny:
> sb optimized away the ELSE in a construct like
>
>while (foo) {
> if (bar ) {
> do something;
> } else {
> break;
> }
>}
>
> resulting in
>
>while (foo) {
> if (bar ) {
> do something;
>
sb optimized away the ELSE in a construct like
while (foo) {
if (bar ) {
do something;
} else {
break;
}
}
resulting in
while (foo) {
if (bar ) {
do something;
break;
}
}
which is obviously wrong.
With this patch an