From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22331 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2004 23:27:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22319 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 23:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Sep 2004 23:27:13 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA16221; Wed, 22 Sep 04 19:30:32 EDT Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:29:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10409222330.AA16221@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: rth@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] AV - Use distance vector Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg02327.txt.bz2 > It returns -1, 0 or 1. Do those satisfy <0, ==0, >0? Why yes, I think they do. I really do mean not necessarily 1, no matter what the current implementation of the function does. Please do as I ask. I was originally going to send a message agreeing with you and making the distinction between the specification and the implementation, but then I checked and saw that the *specification* also says -1, 0, and 1, meaning it's indeed legitimate to rely on it being 1, unlike if that was just what the implementation did. (I originally wrote that function and was now surprised I'd done it that way.) I agree with your comment above, but also think we ought to change the specification of it to say < 0, 0, and >0 instead of -1, 0 and 1.