| |||||||||||||
Regehr: GCC 4.8 Breaks Broken SPEC 2006 BenchmarksRegehr: GCC 4.8 Breaks Broken SPEC 2006 BenchmarksPosted Mar 23, 2013 18:24 UTC (Sat) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)In reply to: Regehr: GCC 4.8 Breaks Broken SPEC 2006 Benchmarks by HelloWorld Parent article: Regehr: GCC 4.8 Breaks Broken SPEC 2006 Benchmarks
>> The point is that gcc should give a warning when one uses a very
>> unusual syntax like k < 16 to express 1, because chances are that >> wasn't the original intent.
The problem is that this kind of thing comes up in macros all the time, esp. in hand-optimized libraries. "(Foo < 8) ? _handcoded_special_function() : _generic_function()" is a common-enough idiom. You cannot just warn about that.
(Log in to post comments)
Regehr: GCC 4.8 Breaks Broken SPEC 2006 Benchmarks Posted Mar 23, 2013 18:52 UTC (Sat) by mansr (guest, #85328) [Link]
A common strategy is to not warn for integer constant expressions used in conditions while warning if a condition involving a non-constant expression is provably invariant.
Regehr: GCC 4.8 Breaks Broken SPEC 2006 Benchmarks Posted Mar 25, 2013 13:37 UTC (Mon) by dlthomas (guest, #89935) [Link]
Fortunately, GCC 4.8 also keeps track of what code is the result of expansion of what macros...
|
|||||||||||||