This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?
- From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- To: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:57:00 -0500
- Subject: Re: Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?
- References: <BFDC3D4B.C8B0%schlie@comcast.net>
Paul Schlie wrote:
As although C/C++ define some expressions as having undefined semantics;
it would seem desirable to be able to conveniently force GCC to presume
a target's true native semantics in lieu of presuming their being undefined.
As a general principle this is completely meaningless, since it presumes
an obvious mapping
from C++ semantics to the "target's true native semantics" [a pretty
meaningless phrase].
So this only makes sense for very specific cases of undefinedness, and
you have to very clearly
state what you are suggesting for that particular case.
(i.e. Enable a target to define it's native overflow, null-dereference, etc.
semantics, which may be optionally utilized as the basis of optimization.)
I assume you are misusing i.e. here to mean "for example", but even so,
these examples are not
particularly useful.