This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)
- From: rridge at csclub dot uwaterloo dot ca (Ross Ridge)
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Ross Ridge <rridge at csclub dot uwaterloo dot ca>,Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:43:24 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)
> You are thinking operationally, when you should think semantically.
> Remember that as-if applies here. The rules as stated give ways to
> achieve certain effects, the question is not whether we are following
> the operational rules, but whether we are following the effects.
Thinking semantically is irrelevent because the question isn't whether GCC
conforms to C99 or POSIX. It clearly doesn't. GCC fails the as-if rule.
The question is one of implementation burden, which can only be answered
by examining GCC's implementation.
> Indeed I am not sure I understand that the three options are in fact
> distinct semantically.
The aren't in C99, as Paul Eggert's original message made clear, but
they are in an environment that defines a command like "c99" that makes
preprocessed output visable.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //