On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Dean McNamee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Erik Corry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I made the O9 to O3 and added volatile to the pointers intended to force
> fp
> > values into memory.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> The union trick is not defined in the standard, but apparently supported
> >> by GCC.
> >
> > It's there to get around a problem with gcc so that doesn't worry me too
> > much.  I realize that other compilers may choose to make use of the
> strict
> > aliasing rule.  This change doesn't make that situation any better or
> worse
> > on those compilers.
>
> Yes, but why do it the wrong way, when you can as easily have done it
> the right way?


I'm not sure what you consider the right way.  If it's bit_cast then that
appears to solve a different problem.


>
>
> >
> >>
> >> """The practice of reading from a different union member than the one
> >> most recently written to (called "type-punning") is common. Even with
> >> -fstrict-aliasing, type-punning is allowed, provided the memory is
> >> accessed through the union type."""
> >>
> >> I don't know if this applies to MSVC.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/5007/diff/1/11
> >> File src/checks.h (right):
> >>
> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/5007/diff/1/11#newcode172
> >> Line 172: if (*exp != *val) {
> >> The correct way of forcing 64-bit FPU is to use "volatile".
> >>
> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/5007
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Erik Corry, Software Engineer
> > Google Denmark ApS.  CVR nr. 28 86 69 84
> > c/o Philip & Partners, 7 Vognmagergade, P.O. Box 2227, DK-1018 Copenhagen
> K,
> > Denmark.
> >
>
> >
>


-- 
Erik Corry, Software Engineer
Google Denmark ApS.  CVR nr. 28 86 69 84
c/o Philip & Partners, 7 Vognmagergade, P.O. Box 2227, DK-1018 Copenhagen K,
Denmark.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to