This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: basic VRP min/max range overflow question
- From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- To: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Michael Veksler <VEKSLER at il dot ibm dot com>, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>,GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>,Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:15:24 -0400
- Subject: Re: basic VRP min/max range overflow question
- References: <BEDC383C.A8E2%schlie@comcast.net>
Paul Schlie wrote:
- yes, effectively I don't perceive any necessity for undefined, vs
unspecified; as I don't perceive any necessity to give the compiler
the freedom to treat generate an arbitrary program which may contain
a potentially ambiguous specific and isolatable behavior.
OK, then you are definitely on a different planet when it comes to
designing languages of this class (C, Ada, PL/1, Pascal, ALgol etc).
Everyone of these language definitions sees a critical need for this
differentiation. It is indeed somewhat fundamental.