Re: Optimisations and undefined behaviour

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 09:28:49AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-11-08 18:49:46 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 01:27:34AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > Why not simply:
> > > >   unsigned y = x;
> > > >   return y*y*y;
> > > > ? This is an example where defined behavior is so easy to get...
> > > 
> > > But what if the result of y*y*y (an unsigned int) does not fit in
> > > an int?
> > 
> > That is implementation-defined. not undefined (6.3.1.3); GCC documents
> > it like this:
> > 
> >      For conversion to a type of width N, the value is reduced modulo
> >      2^N to be within range of the type; no signal is raised.
> 
> That's what GCC does, but what if the user uses another compiler
> or GCC decides to change this behavior in the future?

Then it is still not undefined behaviour.  It can give different results
of course.


Segher



[Index of Archives]     [Linux C Programming]     [Linux Kernel]     [eCos]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Autoconf]     [The DWARVES Debugging Tools]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux GCC]

  Powered by Linux