Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC)

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | | >  C is
| > | > trustworthy (and preferred over SML for that curcial part of the proof
| > | > checker) because the mapping of the C code to the generated assembly
| > | > code is straighforward and amenable to inspection.
| > | | This kind of traceability is of course vital for such
| > applications, but
| > | it is by no means unique to C,
| > Nobody claims it is unique to C.  You're after the wrong target.
| > | and there is a big difference between saying
| > | that C is an assembly language, and that the mapping of C to assembly
| > | language is transparent.
| > Oh, you denied any connection in previous message.
| 
| Not at all,

   > Please do remember that this is hardware dependent.  If you have
   > problems with x86, it does not mean you have the same witha PPC or a
   > Sparc.

   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.

[...]

|      You did not read anything even vaguely saying that in what I wrote.

and you, did you?

-- Gaby