|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Add new built-in: __builtin_unreachable()|
|Date:||Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:15:45 +0200|
Could you explain why it is allowed to remove the trapping instruction?If this were java (which admittedly it is not), that would not be allowed.
Because of -fdelete-null-pointer-checks. Without non-call exceptions, *f does not throw an exception but still the compiler is allowed to assume its address is not null in anything that postdominates it. Admittedly this case is a bit borderline.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH: PR/40314] extract common address for memory access to fields of large struct, Carrot Wei|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH] Fix recent -gdwarf-2 failures, Dominique Dhumieres|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Add new built-in: __builtin_unreachable(), David Daney|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Add new built-in: __builtin_unreachable(), Paul Brook|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|