Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #140699

Re: Compiler stress test

From jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Compiler stress test
Date 2019-02-07 07:13 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <q3gib7$fae$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <q3bl3g$gs4$1@dont-email.me> <gbt4iiFfhg9U4@mid.individual.net> <gc0qq9FgcocU4@mid.individual.net> <q3fii7$p18$1@dont-email.me> <q3fqut$c3k$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Le 07/02/2019 à 00:34, David Brown a écrit :

> There is no particular reason why a compiler for a 64-bit target should 
> itself be a 64-bit program.  

Rule 1:

GCC is always right even if it fails.

> It is only in very odd cases (like this 
> stress test) where the memory limitations of a 32-bit program would be 
> relevant in compilation.  

RULE 2:

If GCC fails, RULE 1 applies.


> And on Windows, 32-bit programs are typically 
> faster than 64-bit versions.

Sure, but all 32 bit processes under windows can use up to 4GB of RAM if 
they turn on the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag in the executable header.

gcc does NOT turn ON that flag, and doesn't even use the 2GB available 
to it but...

RULE 3
Technical resons do not count, because RULE 1 always applies.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-05 10:30 +0100
  Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-05 22:50 +1300
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-05 22:56 +1300
      strict aliasing rule on buffers slacked.misha@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 13:33 +0100
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-02-05 08:13 -0500
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2019-02-05 06:00 -0800
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 15:33 +0100
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-05 14:36 +0000
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-05 07:27 -0800
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-07 08:28 +1300
      Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 19:48 +0000
      Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-06 22:11 +0100
        Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 00:34 +0100
          Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-07 07:13 +0100
            Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 08:32 +0100
              Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 12:06 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 14:08 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 13:49 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 17:01 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-07 22:26 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 23:24 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 23:20 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-08 10:42 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-08 16:37 +1300
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-08 12:30 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 08:18 -0800
                Re: Compiler stress test scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-08 16:04 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-11 20:34 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-08 16:30 +1300
  Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 12:20 +0000
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 09:59 +1300
      Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 21:57 +0000
        Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 00:29 +0100
          Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 23:58 +0000
            Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 14:10 +1300
              Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 01:16 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 14:21 +1300
                Re: Compiler stress test Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-02-06 01:28 -0500
                Re: Compiler stress test Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-02-08 03:51 -0500
            Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 08:13 +0100
      Re: Compiler stress test BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 13:13 -0600

csiph-web