Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
gustedt.wordpress.com | ||
| | | | |
www.ralfj.de
|
|
| | | | | In my previous blog post on pointer provenance, I have shown that not thinking carefully about pointers can lead to a compiler that is internally inconsistent: programs that are intended to... | |
| | | | |
davmac.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | | | An unofficial collection of errata and general problems with the C99 and C11 standards. {C99,C11} 3.1 Weak definition; inconsistent usage of term It is probably a bad idea to redefine a word with such common usage as "access". The definition here is not very clear: to read or modify the value of an object Is... | |
| | | | |
cellperformance.beyond3d.com
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] The provided text discusses strict aliasing in C programming, particularly in the context of the C99 standard. It explains how strict aliasing rules prevent different types from referring to the same memory location, and how this affects compiler optimizations. The text also covers the use of standard integer types like uint64_t and uint32_t from the C99 stdint.h header, and emphasizes the importance of enabling strict aliasing with GCC's -fstrict-aliasing flag for performance and correctness. | |
| | | | |
nurkiewicz.com
|
|
| | | When choosing or learning a new programming language, type system should be your first question. How strict is that language when types don't really match? Will there be a conservative, slow and annoying compiler? Or maybe a fast feedback loop, often resulting in crashes at runtime? And also, is the language runtime trusting you know what you are doing, even if you don't? Or maybe it's babysitting you, making it hard to write fast, low-level code? Believe it or not, I just described static, dynamic, weak and strong typing. | ||
