On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:49 PM Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> So yes, building a shared object with the data exported is probably
> more future-proof ;)
>
> Indded. But I don't know how to do that portably.
>
> Let the perfect not be the enemy of the good here.
>
Marc Glisse writes:
Without #include , some compilers reject it. Also, the string
should be "%d %f" (or replace '+' with ',' in the arguments).
Thanks, fixed!
--
Torbjörn
Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622
___
gmp-bugs mailing list
Richard Biener writes:
So yes, building a shared object with the data exported is probably
more future-proof ;)
Indded. But I don't know how to do that portably.
Let the perfect not be the enemy of the good here.
Don't tease Vincent like that! :-)
--
Torbjörn
Please encrypt, key id
Vincent Lefevre writes:
C99 says: "An object that has volatile-qualified type may be modified
in ways unknown to the implementation or have other unknown side
effects. Therefore any expression referring to such an object shall
be evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract
On 2019-07-03 10:45:24 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:49 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Here, after loop enrolling, the compiler could see that the arguments
> > are known and generate a fixed puts(). This kind of optimization must
> > not be done with a structure declared
