Messages in this thread | | | From | dewar@gnat ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix | Date | Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:22:29 -0500 (EST) |
| |
Peter said
<<Then the code can be optimized to 'b = 0;' since nowhere in the scope of 'a' does anyone take its address(which would allow it to be changed). Of course if 'a' is external then another function can access its address. >>
Well if nothing else this shows that there is still significant disagreement. I consider Peter's statement to be 100% wrong here, optimizing away the access to b would be a clear violation of the standard. I thought that the argument had been made in a clear and convincing manner, but apparently some people completely refuse to be convinced! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |