From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Dave Korn <davek-ml@ntlworld.com>
Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim@hollebeek.com>, Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in loop optimize (invalid postinc to preinc transformation)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:52:00 -0000
Message-id: <20001229005248.B22616@redhat.com>
References: <200012282342.SAA29717@cj44686-b.reston1.va.home.com> <028901c0715f$36a61620$1998fd3e@ubik>
X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00829.html

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:18:26AM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> >int main(void) {
> >   do {
> >  i++;
> >  } while(p++<(unsigned char *)0xffffffff);
[...]
>   Now, what follows is from the n869 draft of the C9X standard....

All this is well and good, except that I don't believe
that it was ever claimed that this program was supposed
to be strictly conforming.

What is being lost sight of is that GCC is also used to 
develop programs in non-hosted situations.  In these
situations it is Known how the address space is shaped,
and we often do Very Nonconforming Things with addresses.

I don't see any particular reason why GCC should fail
this test.  It just makes things less useful.


r~