[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concurrency has landed
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Concurrency has landed |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 19:52:44 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
> Although that's true on most modern platforms, it's not necessarily true for
> platforms that use segmented memory, capabilities, and so forth.
While that's true for the usual "p + n goes over the limit", I really
can't imagine an architecture where "p1 - p2" is valid C code (i.e. both
p1 and p2 point inside the same object) and works before `free` yet it
doesn't give the same answer after `free`.
Stefan
PS: Of course, I would not be surprised to hear that there's some
compiler out there which tries to be too clever for its own sake and
will go "oh, oh, this is not allowed by the C standard, so let's
compile this into utter nonsense just so SPEC runs 0.01% faster".
- Re: Please test the merge of the concurrency branch, (continued)
- Concurrency has landed (was: Please test the merge of the concurrency branch), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/10
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/10
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Paul Eggert, 2016/12/10
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Daniel Colascione, 2016/12/21
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Paul Eggert, 2016/12/22
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Daniel Colascione, 2016/12/22
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Paul Eggert, 2016/12/22
- Re: Concurrency has landed,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Paul Eggert, 2016/12/23
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Stefan Monnier, 2016/12/23
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Paul Eggert, 2016/12/24
- Re: Concurrency has landed, Davis Herring, 2016/12/22
Re: Concurrency has landed, Phillip Lord, 2016/12/13
Re: Please test the merge of the concurrency branch, Ken Raeburn, 2016/12/10