[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Torvald Riegel <> wrote:
> IOW, I wrote that such a compiler transformation would be wrong in my
> opinion. Thus, it should *not* return 42.

Ahh, I am happy to have misunderstood. The "intuitively" threw me,
because I thought that was building up to a "but", and misread the

I then react stronly, because I've seen so much total crap (the
type-based C aliasing rules topping my list) etc coming out of
standards groups because it allows them to generate wrong code that
goes faster, that I just assume compiler people are out to do stupid
things in the name of "..but the standard allows it".


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-10 03:21    [W:0.118 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site