On 23 March 2013 20:32, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> foo.c:1: warning: statement may not have intended effect
>
Or automatically open pages like these on the user's browser:
http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html
http://lwn.net/Articles/250967/
http://docs.oracle.com/
On 23 March 2013 20:18, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 23 March 2013 18:58, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, those of us who are careful when writing code actually
>> want these optimisations. The more information the compiler can
>> infer from the code, the better.
>
> And those of us who don
On 23 March 2013 18:58, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> The thing is, those of us who are careful when writing code actually
> want these optimisations. The more information the compiler can
> infer from the code, the better.
>
And those of us who don't write careful code want as many warnings as
possib
On 23 March 2013 18:51, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 March 2013 18:08, Pinski, Andrew
> wrote:
>> Actually SPEC 2006 is broken if you read the blog post correctly and
>> GCC 4.8 just exposes it.
>
> Yes, that might be why Mans' subject line applies the adjective
> 'broken' to 'SPEC 2006' :-)
Th
On 23 March 2013 18:08, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
> Actually SPEC 2006 is broken if you read the blog post correctly and
> GCC 4.8 just exposes it.
Yes, that might be why Mans' subject line applies the adjective
'broken' to 'SPEC 2006' :-) [also, for completeness: 4.8.0 actually
does not break thing
Actually SPEC 2006 is broken if you read the blog post correctly and GCC 4.8
just exposes it.
Thanks,
Andrew
From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org
[linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] on behalf of Mans Rullgard
[mans.rullg...@linaro.org
This post is making the rounds today:
http://blog.regehr.org/archives/918
--
Mans Rullgard / mru
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
