On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:55:27AM +0300, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
always be one greater than oldi.
I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1, upgrade.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:28:47PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:55:27AM +0300, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
always be one greater than oldi.
I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:55:27AM +0300, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
always be one greater than oldi.
I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1, upgrade.
With
With no optimization the program runs correctly by the rules of integers
representation in memory. See the explanation below.
I must have been asleep last night :} Thanks Alexei!
gcc-3.1 generates similar code, don't have 3.2 on an i386 box
to test. Though 3.2 on an hppa box
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:55:27AM +0300, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
always be one greater than oldi.
I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1, upgrade.
With
I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
always be one greater than oldi.
I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1, upgrade.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
trace
ioldi
00
10check here
11
21
I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
always be one greater than oldi.
I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1, upgrade.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Agreed. Infact it doesn't terminate on all the
7 matches
Mail list logo