From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26459 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2005 18:56:52 -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 26437 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2005 18:56:46 -0000 Received: from smtp-102-tuesday.noc.nerim.net (HELO mallaury.noc.nerim.net) (62.4.17.102) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:56:46 +0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (gdr.net1.nerim.net [62.212.99.186]) by mallaury.noc.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CA162D02; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:56:42 +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 j5SIu3KY005015; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:56:03 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j5SIu3Ia005014; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:56:03 +0200 To: "Dave Korn" Cc: "'Olivier Galibert'" , "'Andrew Haley'" , "'Robert Dewar'" , "'Andrew Pinski'" , "'gcc mailing list'" Subject: Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC) References: From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01179.txt.bz2 "Dave Korn" writes: [...] | >Maybe you should reread what I was replying to: | > | > 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. | > | > That is what I utterly disagree with. | | Well, I don't utterly _anything_ about either his position or yours. C is | not just a high level assembler, it has complex and abstract semantics | imposed on that; it may have been reasonable to treat it as such back in the | very early K'n'R days, but it has changed massively since then. I also | agree that reasoning in the utter abstract about languages is not | necessarily very useful in practice, but it is a perfectly reasonable way to | define a baseline against which it becomes possible to analyze the | similarities and differences of any real-world implementation. when the baseline is that C or C++ has not connection with whardware semantics", it becomes ridiculous and uninteresting. -- Gaby