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)
Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
| > | "has the semantics that Gabriel Dos Reis wants" is not an evaluable
| > | predicate!
| > You completely missed the point, but I guess it is consistent with
| > your denying that there is any connection between C or C++ and
| > hardware.
|
| So, let's make this MUCH more specific. Gabriel, on the MIPS chip,
| do you think there is something in the definition of C that leads
| you to prefer wrap around semantics to trapping semantics?
When it comes down for the compiler writer to chose something for
undefined behaviour, it is hardly solely based on the C standard.
In fact, the C standard is of much less help because it gaves up.
So, your question is inconsistency in terms.
-- Gaby