https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728
--- Comment #12 from John McCall ---
While it's theoretically possible to split a computed-goto edge, in practice
you want to avoid doing so if you at all can, because the split-edge pattern
defeats the interpreter optimization that's the primar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728
--- Comment #8 from John McCall ---
> Let me clarify. If GCC were change behavior of `asm goto` to
> invoke the destructor/cleanup function before the backwards edge
> of `asm goto`, I would submit a patch to clang to implement that
> behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728
--- Comment #5 from John McCall ---
> If this gets changed in GCC, I'd be happy to modify clang to match that
> updated behavior.
Policy-wise, I don't think clang would accept a patch making this UB
(effectively what not calling the destructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106117
--- Comment #8 from John McCall ---
Oh, that's what I get for having two different draft standards open at once.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106117
--- Comment #6 from John McCall ---
Ah, I can see how the FLT_EVAL_METHOD schema gives us a unifying scheme, thank
you. Just to be clear, though, the actual value of FLT_EVAL_METHOD in that
mode should be 0, correct?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106117
--- Comment #4 from John McCall ---
Ah, thank you, we weren't aware of -fexcess-precision=16. If that's the
precedent, we can certainly follow it.
The idea around "16" was to make it clear that this just affects _Float16? If
the option were n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106117
John McCall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rjmccall at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103490
John McCall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rjmccall at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
