search for: odr_

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "odr_".

Did you mean: odr
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
2008 May 01
0
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
...ce new/delete can be overridden > at any time (as late as runtime with LD_PRELOAD and friends), 3 The program's definitions are used instead of the default versions supplied by the implementation (_dcl.fct.def_). Such replacement occurs prior to program startup (_basic.def.odr_, _basic.start_). So, the replacement is done before start, if later, there are no requirements. And, the replacement has known semantics.
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
2008 May 01
3
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
...>> at any time (as late as runtime with LD_PRELOAD and friends), > > 3 The program's definitions are used instead of the default > versions > supplied by the implementation (_dcl.fct.def_). Such > replacement > occurs prior to program startup (_basic.def.odr_, _basic.start_). > > So, the replacement is done before start, if later, there are no > requirements. And, the replacement has known semantics. But isn't that still too late? The optimizer often must make decisions way before that. (Plus, even though the standard currently fai...
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
2008 May 01
3
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
On Apr 30, 2008, at 8:51 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: >> This isn't safe in general unless you can (tightly) bound "n". You >> don't want to overflow the stack. > > Ah yes, of course. Does LLVM do this for known & small constant n? We don't do this currently, primarily because I haven't seen a case where it is a win yet: it would be very easy to
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
2008 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
...me (as late as runtime with LD_PRELOAD and friends), >> >> 3 The program's definitions are used instead of the default >> versions >> supplied by the implementation (_dcl.fct.def_). Such >> replacement >> occurs prior to program startup (_basic.def.odr_, _basic.start_). >> >> So, the replacement is done before start, if later, there are no >> requirements. And, the replacement has known semantics. > > > But isn't that still too late? Too late? What could that possibly mean? There is by definition nothing before...