On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/24/2014 09:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:23:35AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> >>> i >> 32 may happen to be "i", but is there anything that prevents the compiler >>> from returning, let's say, 42? >> >> Not really, although gcc seems to opt for the 'sane' option and emit the >> instruction and let the arch figure out how to deal with it. Hence the >> 'fun' difference between x86 and ARM. > > It's interesting how many different views on undefined behaviour there are between > kernel folks. > > Everything between Ted Ts'o saying that GCC can launch nethack on oversized shifts, > to DaveM saying he will file a GCC bug if the behaviour isn't sane w.r.t to memcpy(). One of the benefits of fixing such issues (or not letting them into code in the first place) is just saving numerous hours of top-notch engineers spent on disputes like this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
