From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Cc: "'gcc mailing list'" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Should GCC publish a general rule/warning due to it's default presumption of undefined signed integer overflow semantics?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:23:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m34qbf5nh9.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a0222ee0d8b9c032e23bc30d2920559b@physics.uc.edu>
Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:
| On Jun 30, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > | Really? You've talked to Stroustrup?
| >
| > I work with him on daily basis, and as a matter of fact we've discussed
| > the heart of this topic of this thread yesterday over lunch. But, as
| > much as I hate argument by authority I could not let this discussion
| > goes on the slope it is taking without saying what I understood from
| > discussion with him on the topic. It wasn't meant as a proof. Just a
| > data point. Of course, it is far preferable he speaks for himself but
| > it is hard to have him take part of a debate where extreme abstract
| > arguments are more dominant than balance between two apparant
| > conflicting goals. And that is, I guess, a wise thing to do just as
| > core developers like RTH may have a say on this very issue :-)
|
| But the reason question is why make it an undefined behavior instead of
| an implementation defined?
I cannot tell you exactly why it was made undefined behaviour. But,
I can tell you from experience working in the C++ committee that there
may be various reasons why something is left undefined (including
oversight), not just because the committee thought it would be fun.
In this specific case, I think (but I'm not 100% sure) it is a carry
over from C90 (like many other "curious" cases).
-- Gaby
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-01 1:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-30 19:15 Paul Schlie
2005-06-30 20:08 ` Paul Schlie
2005-06-30 22:06 ` Joe Buck
2005-06-30 22:26 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-06-30 23:25 ` Joe Buck
2005-07-01 0:49 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-01 1:03 ` Andrew Pinski
2005-07-01 1:23 ` Gabriel Dos Reis [this message]
2005-07-01 1:25 ` Joe Buck
2005-07-01 1:40 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-01 3:16 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-07-01 4:07 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-01 4:15 ` Andrew Pinski
2005-07-01 4:58 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-01 4:53 ` Andrew Pinski
2005-07-01 5:02 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-02 16:51 ` Robert Dewar
2005-07-02 19:07 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-02 23:15 ` Robert Dewar
2005-07-02 23:28 ` Joe Buck
2005-07-03 0:20 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-03 0:16 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-02 16:47 ` Robert Dewar
2005-07-02 16:45 ` Robert Dewar
2005-07-01 1:04 ` Paul Schlie
2005-07-02 16:48 ` Robert Dewar
2005-07-01 1:35 ` Paul Schlie
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m34qbf5nh9.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net \
--to=gdr@integrable-solutions.net \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=pinskia@physics.uc.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).