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.
Gerald
