[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA
From: |
Andrew W. Nosenko |
Subject: |
Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:18:14 +0300 |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:50, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 06/19/11 23:35, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> If you don't use volatile, the compiler is pretty much free to give you
>> whatever answer it likes today.
>
> It's true that the test relies on undefined behavior, and so the
> compiler is free to do whatever it wants, but I don't see how
> adding "volatile" helps, for this particular test. Whatever reasoning
> the compiler can do without "volatile", it can also do with "volatile",
> for this test.
I just marked a volatile the underlying char instead of the pointer.
I will check the right (as I think) markup and send the result in 3-4 hours.
>
> (I have more confidence in the revised test, because this
> time I actually ran it on an x86-64 host with GCC 4.6.0. :-)
>
>
--
Andrew W. Nosenko <address@hidden>
- bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA, Andy Wingo, 2011/06/18
- Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA, Paul Eggert, 2011/06/18
- Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA, Andy Wingo, 2011/06/20
- Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA, Eric Blake, 2011/06/20
- Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA, Paul Eggert, 2011/06/20
- Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA, Ralf Wildenhues, 2011/06/21
- Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA, Paul Eggert, 2011/06/21
Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA, Eric Blake, 2011/06/20