> On 8 Nov 2019, at 18:26, Marco Bodrato wrote:
>
> Il Ven, 8 Novembre 2019 4:59 pm, Niels Möller ha scritto:
>> Hans Åberg writes:
>>
>>> How about memory allocations? — There is info here, suggesting
>>> uninitialized memory access in the test suite:
>
> Our priority is to avoid bugs in
Ciao,
Il Ven, 8 Novembre 2019 4:59 pm, Niels Möller ha scritto:
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>> How about memory allocations? — There is info here, suggesting
>> uninitialized memory access in the test suite:
Our priority is to avoid bugs in the library. So that we usually pay more
attention to the
Hans Åberg writes:
> How about memory allocations? — There is info here, suggesting uninitialized
> memory access in the test suite:
> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/2019-November/001640.html
That issue was fixed by Marco a month and a half ago, see
> On 8 Nov 2019, at 15:48, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
>
> There is info here, suggesting
> uninitialized memory access in the test suite:
> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/2019-November/001640.html
>
> What are you trying to contribute to the discussion in the Subject line?
>
>
Hans Åberg writes:
> On 20 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
>
> Believe it or not, but the GMP devs are pretty good at computer
> arithmetic.
How about memory allocations? — There is info here, suggesting
uninitialized memory access in the test suite:
> On 20 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
>
> Believe it or not, but the GMP devs are pretty good at computer
> arithmetic.
How about memory allocations? — There is info here, suggesting uninitialized
memory access in the test suite:
> On 20 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>> I believe we assume signed integers are in two's complement.
>
> Strictly, it is for signed overflows one cannot assume modulo 2^n, n =
> number of bits. For the unsigned integer types it is required,
>
> On 20 Oct 2019, at 21:44, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
> A common programming error is assuming that signed integer types are
> two’s complement, because even though all current CPUs are that,
> overflows are undefined in C/C++, and an optimizer can take advantage
>
Hans Åberg writes:
Strictly, it is for signed overflows one cannot assume modulo 2^n, n =
number of bits. For the unsigned integer types it is required,
though.
Believe it or not, but the GMP devs are pretty good at computer
arithmetic.
--
Torbjörn
Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622
Hans Åberg writes:
A common programming error is assuming that signed integer types are
two’s complement, because even though all current CPUs are that,
overflows are undefined in C/C++, and an optimizer can take advantage
of that. One example from [1]: checking overflows with x > x + 1
> On 20 Oct 2019, at 13:24, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
> I have compiled gmp-6.1.2 on MacOS 10.15 using the inhouse Apple clang
> and the MacPorts gcc9 and clang9, with ‘make check’. All tests passed
> on gcc9, but the two clang had one error each.
>
> Several
Hans Åberg writes:
I have compiled gmp-6.1.2 on MacOS 10.15 using the inhouse Apple clang
and the MacPorts gcc9 and clang9, with ‘make check’. All tests passed
on gcc9, but the two clang had one error each.
Several people seem to have trouble with using clang. When clang first
appeared,
I have compiled gmp-6.1.2 on MacOS 10.15 using the inhouse Apple clang and the
MacPorts gcc9 and clang9, with ‘make check’. All tests passed on gcc9, but the
two clang had one error each.
% uname -a
Darwin Kernel Version 19.0.0: Wed Sep 25 20:18:50 PDT 2019;
13 matches
Mail list logo
