On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:47 AM, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT
wrote:
>> void testing(void)
>> {
>> #define NR_STRUCT_A (4)
>> struct B* ptr = malloc(sizeof(struct B) + NR_STRUCT_A*sizeof(struct
>> A));
>>
>> ptr->numelem = NR_STRUCT_A;
>> ptr->item= (struct A*)(ptr+1);
>>
>>
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Olivier Langlois
wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 08:52 +0200, Martti Kühne wrote:
>> Sorry if this is OT and a dumb question, but are you sure you want
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:20 PM, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > struct B
>> > {
>> >
> void testing(void)
> {
> #define NR_STRUCT_A (4)
> struct B* ptr = malloc(sizeof(struct B) + NR_STRUCT_A*sizeof(struct
> A));
>
> ptr->numelem = NR_STRUCT_A;
> ptr->item= (struct A*)(ptr+1);
>
> ptr->item[0].a = 0;
> ptr->item[1].a = 1;
> ptr->item[2].a
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 08:52 +0200, Martti Kühne wrote:
> Sorry if this is OT and a dumb question, but are you sure you want
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:20 PM, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT
> wrote:
> [...]
> > struct B
> > {
> > int numelem;
> > /*
> > * Old C trick to defi
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 04:50 -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:49 AM, wrote:
> > If this function initArr() is moved to the same cpp file of main(),
> > all optimization level get the same result.
>
Good observation. Having a separate TU for init function was intentional
On 2013-05-14 05:42:04, Daniel Micay wrote:
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 05:42:04 -0400
> From: Daniel Micay
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] gcc: loop do not terminate
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:02 AM, wrote:
> > On 2013-05-1
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:02 AM, wrote:
> On 2013-05-14 04:50:11, Daniel Micay wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 04:50:11 -0400
>> From: Daniel Micay
>> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
>> Subject: Re: [arch-general] gcc: loop do not terminate
>>
&
On 2013-05-14 04:50:11, Daniel Micay wrote:
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 04:50:11 -0400
> From: Daniel Micay
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] gcc: loop do not terminate
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:49 AM, wrote:
> > If this functi
On 2013-05-13 18:20:05, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT wrote:
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:20:05 +
> From: LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT
> To: "General Discussion about Arch Linux (arch-general@archlinux.org)"
>
> Subject: [arch-general] gcc: loop do not terminate
>
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:49 AM, wrote:
> If this function initArr() is moved to the same cpp file of main(),
> all optimization level get the same result.
That's the great thing about undefined behaviour, you never know what
you'll get. It's really not something anyone should be relying on
On 2013-05-13 18:20:05, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT wrote:
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:20:05 +
> From: LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT
> To: "General Discussion about Arch Linux (arch-general@archlinux.org)"
>
> Subject: [arch-general] gcc: loop do not terminate
>
Am 13.05.2013 22:59, schrieb LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT:
> I hear you. I, however, disagree when you qualify the old C trick pattern as
> incorrect.
It is incorrect according to C standards. There is no room for
"disagreement". If you write non-conforming code, you cannot expect it
to work right.
Sorry if this is OT and a dumb question, but are you sure you want
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:20 PM, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT
wrote:
[...]
> struct B
> {
> int numelem;
> /*
> * Old C trick to define a dynamically sizable array just by
> allocating
> * sizeof(B)
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 PM, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT
wrote:
>>
>> The only time the switch makes a difference is when the program is already
>> incorrect. I really doubt Arch is going to enable a flag slowing down all
>> programs to make invalid programs behave
>> *differently* (not necessar
>
> The only time the switch makes a difference is when the program is already
> incorrect. I really doubt Arch is going to enable a flag slowing down all
> programs to make invalid programs behave
> *differently* (not necessary as they were intended to behave, just
> *differently*).
>
> GCC is cor
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:20 PM, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT
wrote:
> I have just been hit by something:
>
> lano1106@hpmini ~/dev/gcc-test $ g++ --version
> g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20130502 (prerelease)
> Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software; see the source for copying
I have just been hit by something:
lano1106@hpmini ~/dev/gcc-test $ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20130502 (prerelease)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
17 matches
Mail list logo
