eful attention, just like the goto.
So combining it a-la Tom Duff with another construct blessed by
Dijkstra, the for loop, can sometimes lead to unexpected results.
Pjotr
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 14:07 +0100, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:26 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:26 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Pjotr Kourzanov
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 10:47 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 03/02/2010 10:34 AM, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> >>
> >> >> int duff4_fails(char * dst,const char * src,const size
Hi guys,
I have the following variation on Duff's device that seems to
mis-compile on all GCC versions I can access within a minute (that
is gcc-3.{3,4}, gcc-4.{1,2,3,4} on x86 and gcc-4.3.2 on x86_64). The
symptoms are as follows:
$ gcc-4.4 -o duffbug duffbug.c ; ./duffbug
{ he��3)
{ hello
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 01:22:15PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dear gcc users and developers,
> >
> > This might be a stupid question, nevertheless...
> >
> > I've been wondering for a long time, why the behaviour of
> > variable-length arrays w.r.t. the sizeof
Dear gcc users and developers,
This might be a stupid question, nevertheless...
I've been wondering for a long time, why the behaviour of
variable-length arrays w.r.t. the sizeof operator is different
for local/auto variables and for function arguments (in C99):
#include
void foo(int s, in
