Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "7f12b536".
Did you mean:
7.123536
2009 Jun 10
0
[LLVMdev] Call to address 0 gets removed
There's another point that hasn't been raised yet here, which is that
the
undefinedness of calling (void*) 0 is a property of C, not necessarily
of
the LLVM abstract language. I think you can make an excellent case that
the standard optimizations should not be enforcing C language semantics,
or at least should allow such optimizations to be disabled.
Case in point —
2009 Jun 10
2
[LLVMdev] Call to address 0 gets removed
...instructions to
specify their exact semantics similarly to the integer overflow proposal (
http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/IntegerOverflow.txt ).
Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090610/7f12b536/attachment.html>
2009 Jun 10
3
[LLVMdev] Call to address 0 gets removed
> Dale Johannesen wrote:
>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>>> Dale Johannesen wrote:
>>>> Marius Wachtler wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> The call to address 0 gets removed.
>>>>
>>>> define i32 @t(i32 %a) noreturn nounwind readnone {
>>>> entry:
>>>> unreachable
>>>> }
>>>>