From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11550 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 17:59:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11535 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 17:59:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 17:59:25 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 182FCF2D86; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:59:25 -0400 (EDT) To: dewar@gnat.com, gdr@integrable-solutions.net Subject: Re: std::pow implementation Cc: aoliva@redhat.com, bernds@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jbuck@synopsys.com, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl Message-Id: <20030804175925.182FCF2D86@nile.gnat.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:08:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 > I do insist on the fact that it is not just an "as-if" rule. You can insist all you like, but every rule in a standard of this kind is an as-if rule. It would require a formal apparatus and set of definitions far beyond what the C++ standard attempts for it to be otherwise. The standard describes the meaning of a program in formal semantic terms by giving a formal semantics to C++ programs. It does not specify what code should be generated, only what that code must mean when it is executed.