23 ms·
I just ran this after compiling it with clang-500.2.79 based on LLVM 3.3svn, and the output was 140. Maybe GCC is to blame?
by mmariani 13y ago
I just ran this after compiling it with clang-500.2.79 based on LLVM 3.3svn, and the output was 140. Maybe GCC is to blame?
- steveklabnik 13y agoIt's undefined behaviour, so you won't get a consistent answer.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- hbar 13y agoIt's undefined in the spec. So GCC and clang are both correct.