This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?
- From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:15:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?
- References: <BFDC76E4.C8BE%schlie@comcast.net> <43B7105C.4010806@adacore.com> <m3zmmgdex2.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <43B7854C.7090802@adacore.com> <m31wzs10cl.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| >Maybe that is the case for Ada; for the C or C++ standards, you'll
| > have to define "good reason". -- Gaby
| >
| Again, I suggest that vague high level discussion is a waste of time
| here,
I wholeheartly agree, that is why I find you need to back up your
universal claim.
You mean my claim that the standards group knows what it is doing and is
not stupid? :-)
Well I could give many examples, but I still think it is more useful to
get back to the original intent
of Paul's thread, which is to describe specific semantics for some of
these cases. Otherwise we
are really discussing entirely irrelevant matters.
-- Gaby