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: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 01 Jan 2006 00:28:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?
- References: <BFDC76E4.C8BE%schlie@comcast.net> <43B7105C.4010806@adacore.com>
Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
| Paul Schlie wrote:
|
| >- Are there any particular formally "undefined" language semantics you
| > perceive as being difficult associate with an alternatively well defined
| > target specific implementation behavior? As if not, I can only interpret
| > your response as being itself both seemingly unfounded and meaningless.
| >
| >
| >
| IN every case where the standard specifies undefined behavior, it has
| a very good reason for doing so.
Maybe that is the case for Ada; for the C or C++ standards, you'll
have to define "good reason".
-- Gaby