This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: basic VRP min/max range overflow question

From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
To: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:09:00 -0700
Subject: Re: basic VRP min/max range overflow question

On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:59 PM, Paul Schlie wrote:

- If the semantics of an operation are "undefined", I'd agree; but if
  control is returned to the program, the program's remaining specified
  semantics must be correspondingly obeyed, including the those which
  may utilize the resulting value of the "undefined" operation.

I am sorry the standard disagrees with you:

       [#3] A  program  that  is  correct  in  all  other  aspects,
       operating  on  correct data, containing unspecified behavior
       shall be a  correct  program  and  act  in  accordance  with
       5.1.2.3.

:-( Maybe you just mean that you'd like it if the compiler should follow the remaining semantics as best it can, on that point, I'd agree.

References:
- Re: basic VRP min/max range overflow question
  - From: Paul Schlie

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]