This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- Cc: "'Olivier Galibert'" <galibert at pobox dot com>, "'Andrew Haley'" <aph at redhat dot com>, "'Robert Dewar'" <dewar at adacore dot com>, "'Andrew Pinski'" <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, "'gcc mailing list'" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 28 Jun 2005 20:56:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC)
- References: <SERRANOVkwyBnVBwYkm00000277@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
"Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com> writes:
[...]
| >Maybe you should reread what I was replying to:
| >
| > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:57:20AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
| >> But the whole idea of hardware semantics is bogus, since you are
| >> assuming some connection between C and the hardware which does not
| >> exist. C is not an assembly language.
| >
| > That is what I utterly disagree with.
|
| Well, I don't utterly _anything_ about either his position or yours. C is
| not just a high level assembler, it has complex and abstract semantics
| imposed on that; it may have been reasonable to treat it as such back in the
| very early K'n'R days, but it has changed massively since then. I also
| agree that reasoning in the utter abstract about languages is not
| necessarily very useful in practice, but it is a perfectly reasonable way to
| define a baseline against which it becomes possible to analyze the
| similarities and differences of any real-world implementation.
when the baseline is that C or C++ has not connection with whardware
semantics", it becomes ridiculous and uninteresting.
-- Gaby