From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-117293-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11924 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2005 12:12:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11904 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jul 2005 12:12:37 -0000
Received: from mail-in-04.arcor-online.net (HELO mail-in-04.arcor-online.net) (151.189.21.44)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:12:37 +0000
Received: from mail-in-06-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-06-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.18])
	by mail-in-04.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22194289F4;
	Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:12:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-in-08.arcor-online.net (mail-in-08.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.48])
	by mail-in-06-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0203124376;
	Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:12:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [84.60.23.149] (dsl-084-060-023-149.arcor-ip.net [84.60.23.149])
	(Authenticated sender: bauhaus@arcor.de)
	by mail-in-08.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F0D590EA;
	Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:12:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <42D8F9B2.10306@futureapps.de>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:12:00 -0000
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>
CC:  gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?
References: <BEFD487E.AD59%schlie@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <BEFD487E.AD59%schlie@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00657.txt.bz2

Paul Schlie wrote:

>>From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
>>    
>>
>>>Paul Schlie wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>From: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>> this would mean you could not put local variables in
>>>>registers. the effect on code quality woul be awful!
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Why would anyone care about the performance of an access to an
>>>un-initialized variable? 
>>>      
>>>
>>You can have both, correctness and uninitialised local
>>variables. For an impression of the difference in performance,
>>    
>>

>- which predominantly illustrates the effect of volatile semantics?
>  
>
I was looking for a way to stop GCC from using registers,
as I wanted to see one of the above mentioned effects
on code quality. Hence volatile.


-- Georg