“Fiercely resist any further broadening of the scope of the C UB problem”

Re:“Fiercely resist any further broadening of the scope of t... by ArkyBeagle on Thursday April 14, 2016 @01:18PM (#11498617)

You have to work pretty hard to get code to a state such that compiler optimizations will save you.

I've had this same argument with cache management specialists. If you have to consider how the cache works for your product to work, you're doing it wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Fiercely resist any further broadening of the scope of t... by GFK_of_xmaspast on Thursday April 14, 2016 @04:48PM (#11500230)

> You have to work pretty hard to get code to a state such that compiler optimizations will save you

At least in c++, this is absolutely 100% not the case, there's a huge difference between -O0 and -O2.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Fiercely resist any further broadening of the scope of t... by ArkyBeagle on Thursday April 14, 2016 @07:13PM (#11500989)

I need to check that out for myself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Fiercely resist any further broadening of the scope of t... by dumael on Thursday April 14, 2016 @06:37PM (#11500837)

I've dealt with bugs that existed at -O0, -O2 was fine. But the bug was in the compiler itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Fiercely resist any further broadening of the scope of t... by ArkyBeagle on Thursday April 14, 2016 @07:12PM (#11500986)

Absolutely.

[ Parent | on HN ]