From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116413-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10110 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2005 14:47:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 9963 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2005 14:47:06 -0000
Received: from smtp-102-tuesday.nerim.net (HELO kraid.nerim.net) (62.4.16.102)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:47:06 +0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (gdr.net1.nerim.net [62.212.99.186])
	by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AB640F67;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:47:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j5SEkQKY003753;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:46:26 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j5SEkQOi003752;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:46:26 +0200
To: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>
Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>,
        gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC)
References: <m3fyv3je0t.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<6d9fa260f233e519762c7d11276a35ad@physics.uc.edu>
	<m3hdfjhxok.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<3dbad9a6bd7eb1aea74ff2245eaa1b99@physics.uc.edu>
	<m3br5rhvgm.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<42C115D5.8070503@adacore.com>
	<m3psu6hfau.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<42C13D4D.9040604@adacore.com>
	<m3d5q6fyrf.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<42C14930.40402@adacore.com> <20050628142441.GA52889@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050628142441.GA52889@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:47:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m34qbibku5.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01124.txt.bz2

Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com> writes:

| On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:57:20AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
| > But the whole idea of hardware semantics is bogus, since you are
| > assuming some connection between C and the hardware which does not
| > exist. C is not an assembly language.
| 
| A non-negligible part of the use of C and even C++ is as a high-level,
| somewhat portable assembly language.  Ignoring that part is not a very
| good idea.

Especially given that we do compile C and C++ programs based on the
published processor specific ABIs, and pretending that there is no
connection between C or C++ and hardware semantics is, ahem, not a
very good idea.

-- Gaby