From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
To: dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca, drepper@redhat.com
Cc: aj@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com,
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, martin@v.loewis.de
Subject: Re: Miscompilation of glibc with CVS mainline
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:52:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030104175216.5509EF2D4F@nile.gnat.com> (raw)
> If you think about when the "optimization" can be used, it is very
> questionable at best whether it's useful. Why would anybody add a test
> for a function reference being NULL without the possibility of this
> being the case? For this reason and the history of code like this gcc
> should never remove the tests and the old behavior should be restored.
One of the most important pieces of documentation is what you did not do
and why you did not do it :-)
In this case, when the optimization is removed (I agree it should be), then
in its place a comment saying why it is not done (perhaps even leaving the
undesirable code commented out) would be helpful to stop people doing this
again!
next reply other threads:[~2003-01-04 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-04 17:52 Robert Dewar [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-04 18:54 Robert Dewar
[not found] <no.id>
2003-01-02 17:48 ` John David Anglin
2003-01-02 17:54 ` Jakub Jelinek
2003-01-02 18:58 ` John David Anglin
2003-01-02 17:57 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-01 17:43 John David Anglin
2003-01-02 13:18 ` Andreas Jaeger
2003-01-02 13:27 ` Jakub Jelinek
2003-01-02 13:53 ` Andreas Jaeger
2003-01-02 14:41 ` Andreas Jaeger
2003-01-02 21:10 ` Andreas Jaeger
2003-01-02 17:38 ` John David Anglin
2003-01-02 17:48 ` "Martin v. Löwis"
2003-01-02 18:52 ` John David Anglin
2003-01-02 18:58 ` Paul Jarc
2003-01-02 19:10 ` Dale Johannesen
2003-01-02 19:16 ` John David Anglin
2003-01-02 19:26 ` Paul Jarc
2003-01-02 20:25 ` Martin v. Löwis
2003-01-02 22:11 ` Richard Henderson
2003-01-03 1:02 ` John David Anglin
2003-01-03 1:35 ` Richard Henderson
2003-01-02 19:42 ` Ulrich Drepper
2003-01-02 22:16 ` Richard Henderson
2003-01-03 0:14 ` Fergus Henderson
2003-01-01 13:37 Andreas Jaeger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030104175216.5509EF2D4F@nile.gnat.com \
--to=dewar@gnat.com \
--cc=aj@suse.de \
--cc=dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=martin@v.loewis.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).