From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20091 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2005 17:53:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 20077 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2005 17:53:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:53:39 +0000 Received: from relay7.apple.com (a17-128-113-37.apple.com [17.128.113.37]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jASHrXjk029503; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:53:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.219.211.90] (unknown [17.219.211.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 17C82A5; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:53:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <200511281741.jASHf9Bc001892@earth.phy.uc.edu> References: <200511281741.jASHf9Bc001892@earth.phy.uc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org (Richard Earnshaw), dave.korn@artimi.com (Dave Korn), ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor), gcc@gcc.gnu.org (gcc mailing list), dewar@adacore.com (Robert Dewar) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Mike Stump Subject: Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:53:00 -0000 To: Andrew Pinski X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg01277.txt.bz2 On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Huh? they are not carefully written at all. This is why I said what > is GNU C? Again the language is not written out so it means anything. So then clearly, since it means anything, we can change gcc to accept pascal instead of C? Right? This is absurd. > If poeple want something defined the way they like it, please write > some > documentation that way and post a patch. I could care which way it > goes > except right now, we can do anything because it is not that well > written > (well it is undocuemented). I disagree. For example, there is behavior mandated by the Standard for C, such as this, that, reasonably, I think we have to follow. You can argue that we don't have to follow the standard but I'm not just going to listen to you.