(j3.2006) Wednesday papers
Thu Oct 17 16:17:24 EDT 2013
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 21:15 -0700, Van Snyder wrote:
> Something should be said in a note about the possibility that B(n+n)
> might produce an array of a different size from B(2*n), or that B(n+n)
> might always produce the same size array as B(2*n) even if N changes
> rapidly but the processor does the permitted transformation of
> replacing n+n by 2*n.
Might it be appropriate to prohibit, in 18.104.22.168.4p3, "mathematically
equivalent" transformations involving volatile variables? After all,
that "n+n" and "2*n" are mathematically equivalent rests upon the
presumption that the value of "n" is stable.
More information about the J3