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
> >
> > Changed my mind. After a posting from Linus on dri-devel and a discussion
> > about integer overflow (undefined) in C the following came out:
>
> Is integer overflow behaviour really undefined? If yes (I want it to be yes
> :),
> then, of course, it's the programmer's fault, not the compil
> 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,
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 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 hp
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.
> 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 no optimization the program runs correctly by the rules of integers
r
> 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 a
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
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Thomas Deselaers
>Organization:
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: gcc-3.0 optimization bug on debian GNU/Linux on x86 with very simple
>program
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: medium
>Category: c
>Class: wrong-code
>Release: 3.0.4 (
10 matches
Mail list logo
