Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v983ks$nglf$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Bart <bc@freeuk.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: how cast works? Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 17:14:19 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 41 Message-ID: <v983ks$nglf$1@dont-email.me> References: <v8vlo9$2oc1v$1@dont-email.me> <slrnvb7kis.28a.dan@djph.net> <v929ah$3u7l7$1@dont-email.me> <87ttfu94yv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v93a3t$6q7v$1@dont-email.me> <v93e2q$8put$1@dont-email.me> <v94smd$mgp8$1@dont-email.me> <v95j4r$qh1q$3@dont-email.me> <v95okr$2oa92$1@dont-email.me> <v95sij$1arjo$3@dont-email.me> <v97eo3$i03p$2@dont-email.me> <v97p5g$lfau$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 18:14:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a0e251ad936bdebc4e157c2935c3fc38"; logging-data="770735"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/d34/2TGGg/EHz0iXFnA4a" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xm8k259NzJHPtDL3G6rdzicXfPQ= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <v97p5g$lfau$1@dont-email.me> On 10/08/2024 14:15, Thiago Adams wrote: > Em 8/10/2024 7:17 AM, Bart escreveu: >> On 09/08/2024 21:01, David Brown wrote: >>> On 09/08/2024 20:54, Thiago Adams wrote: >> >>> I don't know what you are referring to here. But if you are using >>> compiler explorer, I encourage you to look at the generated output >>> for a wide range of targets, including 8-bit AVR, 16-bit MSP430, >>> 32-bit ARM, and 64-bit x86. Use gcc -O1 or -O2 in every case. >> >> When would you choose -O2 over -O1 or vice versa? Could a similar >> circumstance cause you to choose -O0? Why not -O3? >> >> In fact, why is there a -O0 option at all? >> >> (Ignore Bart's >>> ignorant blatherings about optimisation.) >> >> [To TA:] >> >> Yes do. But don't complaint to me when your test code results in >> meaningless or misleading output, or no output at all. >> >> Actually, I would recommend looking at both (eg. -O0 and -O1) so that >> you can see if the compiler's optimiser has been over-zealous in >> eliminating code, or has chopped out key bits, so that you might >> modify your test code. >> >> I would recommend also looking at the Tiny C option on godbolt when >> comparing x86 code. >> > > > > Bart, Does your compiler support the `bool` type, where the value is > always either 1 or 0? There is a bool type, but it is treated like unsigned char, so is non-conforming.