[LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses (original) (raw)
Renato Golin renato.golin at linaro.org
Wed Jul 1 08:41:22 PDT 2015
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses
- Next message: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 1 July 2015 at 15:20, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
Group all monkey's paw optimisations together, and enable them only if an extra compiler flag is supplied. Or failing that, at least have a compiler flag that will disable all of them (while leaving all the safe optimisations enabled).
So, are you suggesting we get rid of all undefined AND implementation defined behaviour from compilers?
That means getting:
- all compiler people to agree on a specific interpretation, then
- all hardware people to re-implement their hardware, re-ship their products
Unless there is a flag, say, -std=c11, which makes the compiler follow the standard?
If not all, how pragmatic is good pragmatic? How much of it should we do? How are we going to get all compiler folks from all fields to agree on what's acceptable and what's not?
Funny enough, there is a place where that happens already, the C/C++ standard committee. And what's left of undefined / implementation defined behaviour is what they don't agree on.
I can't see how this could be different...
cheers, --renato
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses
- Next message: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]