Am Dienstag, den 11.02.2020, 21:43 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On February 11, 2020 9:32:14 PM GMT+01:00, "Uecker, Martin"
>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the following example, it seems
> > that 'bar' could be optimized to
> > return '1' and every else could be
> > optimized away. Or am I missing
> >
On February 11, 2020 9:32:14 PM GMT+01:00, "Uecker, Martin"
wrote:
>
>In the following example, it seems
>that 'bar' could be optimized to
>return '1' and every else could be
>optimized away. Or am I missing
>something?
p might be still NULL when bar is called.
Do I need to add
>some specif
In the following example, it seems
that 'bar' could be optimized to
return '1' and every else could be
optimized away. Or am I missing
something? Do I need to add
some specific compiler flags?
static int a = 1;
static int *p;
extern
void foo(void)
{
p = &a;
}
extern
int bar(void)
{
retu
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 04:34, Fangrui Song wrote:
>
> GCC never evaluates __atomic_is_lock_free to 0.
> (gcc/builtins.c:fold_builtin_atomic_always_lock_free)
> I'd like to change clang to eagerly evaluate __atomic_is_lock_free to 0 for
> apparently oversized types.
> This helps some platforms to
Hi all,
> You may have recently received an email asking you to review a
> document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or
> reject it.
The email in question was sent to GNU maintainers and can be found
here:
https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/plain/code/sc-email.txt
T
