On 22 October 2018 at 19:16, Richard Henderson
wrote:
> In several places we use assert(FEATURE), and assume that if FEATURE
> is disabled, all following code is removed as unreachable. Which allows
> us to compile-out functions that are only present with FEATURE, and
> have a link-time failure i
On 23/10/18 9:02, Richard Henderson wrote:
In several places we use assert(FEATURE), and assume that if FEATURE
is disabled, all following code is removed as unreachable. Which allows
us to compile-out functions that are only present with FEATURE, and
have a link-time failure if the functions re
In several places we use assert(FEATURE), and assume that if FEATURE
is disabled, all following code is removed as unreachable. Which allows
us to compile-out functions that are only present with FEATURE, and
have a link-time failure if the functions remain used.
MinGW does not mark its internal
On 22/10/18 20:16, Richard Henderson wrote:
In several places we use assert(FEATURE), and assume that if FEATURE
is disabled, all following code is removed as unreachable. Which allows
us to compile-out functions that are only present with FEATURE, and
have a link-time failure if the functions r
On 10/22/18 7:16 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> + * not marked a noreturn, so the compiler cannot delete code following an
Bah. Peter, if you apply this directly, can you please fix the grammar around
"marked a return" (either s/a/as/ or s/a// sound equally plausible for me).
r~
In several places we use assert(FEATURE), and assume that if FEATURE
is disabled, all following code is removed as unreachable. Which allows
us to compile-out functions that are only present with FEATURE, and
have a link-time failure if the functions remain used.
MinGW does not mark its internal
