On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 08:29:48PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote: > > Unfortunately, where there is a good argument for not using empty loops > > as busy-waits, at one time it was documented GCC behavior that it would > > work, so we can't really blame the users for trusting the doc. > > However, it's really a looong time since we clarified that: > > Mon Dec 28 19:26:32 1998 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * gcc.texi (Non-bugs): ``Empty'' loops will be optimized away in > the future; indeed that already happens in some cases.
You forget that I am as old as the hills. :-)
