[LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses (original) (raw)
Russell Wallace russell.wallace at gmail.com
Wed Jul 1 11:34:32 PDT 2015
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses
- Next message: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Why do you say spin? I'm not making any of this up; there have been published cases of bugs creeping into code that had worked correctly for years, without any change to the code itself, because a new version of GCC started applying a monkey's paw optimisation. That's the sort of thing that prompted the survey that started this thread.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
> But having programs miscompiled so that they silently fail, in many cases > starting only years after the code in question was written, is very much not > okay. That's far worse than documented portability problems.
When given a certain spin... Tim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150701/3990bea7/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses
- Next message: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]