| |||||||||||||
Sure, but then you deserve what you get...Sure, but then you deserve what you get...Posted May 26, 2011 17:05 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547)In reply to: Sure, but then you deserve what you get... by khim Parent article: What Every C Programmer Should Know About Undefined Behavior #3/3
Do you really want to punish the compiler and force it to keep "for loop iterative variable" in memory to make sure it's changed via float if the pointers are mixed just right?Sure, if I keep an induction variable in a global variable, static variable or an auto variable that I take the address of, I expect that variable to be in memory and to be fetched from there and/or stored there whenever I access it. What's this nonsense about punishing the compiler? It's a thing without feelings, it cannot be punished. If it's a good compiler, it will do what I expect. Unfortunately, the most popular compilers become worse and worse with every release. I would welcome the world that you dream of where these compilers miscompile every significant program. Then the pain would be so large that we all (well, you and a few others excepted) would finally scratch our itch and write a compiler that does not do any of that nonsense, and gcc etc. would go the way of XFree86, like they should.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||