Paul Eggert wrote:
What about invoking the function indirectly, i.e. declare a pointer to
the function, set it to the function, and call
Sorry, none of that stuff is guaranteed to work with ISO C.
The implementation is allowed to dump core if you compare
A < B where A and B point to distin
> What about invoking the function indirectly, i.e. declare a pointer to
> the function, set it to the function, and call
Sorry, none of that stuff is guaranteed to work with ISO C.
The implementation is allowed to dump core if you compare
A < B where A and B point to distinct objects.
alloc
I disagree.
gcc (versions 3 and 4) will indeed inline with various -On
options but gets it right.
AFAIK the return test in growsdown MUST be evaluated
regardless of optimization out of the variables themselves
and therefore the compiler in this case must do it right.
Actually, as a side note to t
I have two questions about this thread.
First, is there an easy way to disable optimization for certain test
cases?
Second, what about the cross-compile case (where the code cannot be
run)?
H
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gn
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 01:26:42PM CET:
There is a test to check the stack direction when building the
replacement alloca. This test returns bad results with optimizations:
[...]
exit (find_stack_direction () < 0);
It also fails with -xO2 on HPU
On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:48 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Peter,
Hi Ralf,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 01:26:42PM CET:
There is a test to check the stack direction when building the
replacement alloca. This test returns bad results with optimizations:
[...]
exit (find_s
Hi Peter,
I'm far from an expert in this area, so take this with a grain of salt.
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 01:26:42PM CET:
>
> There is a test to check the stack direction when building the
> replacement alloca. This test returns bad results with optimizations:
[...]
> ex
Roger While <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any reason why the following should not work ? -
>
> int
> growsdown (void *x)
> {
> int y;
> return x > (void *)&y;
> }
>
> int
> main()
> {
> int x;
> exit (growsdown(&x));
> }
That could fail exactly the same way if grow
Any reason why the following should not work ? -
int
growsdown (void *x)
{
int y;
return x > (void *)&y;
}
int
main()
{
int x;
exit (growsdown(&x));
}
Roger While
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://li
