Still broken in LLVM: https://gist.github.com/thestinger/f805fd61f2da9901d2fe4442d31c82ce …. Breaks memory/type safety guarantees in LLVM-based languages if they take advantage of non-returning functions like Rust. C11 does allow removing the loop but not what the 2nd example ends up doing. @johnregehr @spun_off @RichFelker
-
-
Yes, also you can replace it with for(;1;) and Clang's behavior remains the same.
-
Then since 1 is an ICE I think the text about constant expression applies.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.