No, you really don't need undefined behavior in the standard in order
to enable bug-finding.
The standard could've (and still could...) make signed integer
overflow "implementation-defined" rather than "undefined". Compilers
would thus be required to have *some documented meaning* for it (e.g.
wra
ernel
Mailing List; David Howells; Peter Zijlstra; Ramana Radhakrishnan; Luc
Maranget; Andrew Morton; Paul McKenney; Ingo Molnar
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume
definition
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
>>
2 matches
Mail list logo
