From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
To: dewar@gnat.com, fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
Cc: bernds@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: forcing tail/sibling call optimization
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:27:00 -0000
Message-id: <20001126232748.B62FD34D80@nile.gnat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg01146.html

<<In ANSI/ISO C: no.  But the ANSI/ISO C standard is not a good model
for how to write specifications.
>>

I disagree, it is an EXCELLENT model for how to write *specifications*.


<<In GNU C: yes.  For example, many parts of the GNU C manual say
that if a certain option is enabled, the compiler will issue
certain warnings.  If the GNU C manual is treated as a specification,
these parts of the manual are definitely requirements on the compiler.
>>

The GNU C manual is nowhere near a formal specification, it is fine
for a compiler manual to talk about warnings, but it is not possible
to "treat" the GNU C manual as a specification, it is just not 
precise enough.

So if you want to state what you are proposing as a formal specification,
the "requirement" for a warning should be implementation advice. After all
we expect that GNU C will follow implementation advice for features that
we design :-)