[LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses (original) (raw)

David Keaton dmk at dmk.com
Thu Jul 2 16:44:34 PDT 2015

On 07/02/2015 03:17 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote:

You want to redefine ["won't break the program"], by specifying a new abstract machine, which is more conservative than standard C/C++. The proper way to do that would, I believe, be to work towards setting up a working group within the relevant committees, and come up with a uniformly accepted definition for this abstract machine, which could then be implemented (assuming there is, indeed, wide enough agreement in the implementer community – something that does not look at all likely) by next-generation compilers.

  This work has already been done in Annex L of the C standard,

which provides an optional stricter abstract machine. As far as I know, no implementations have attempted to support Annex L yet.

Point is – I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.

This isn’t an llvm-dev issue, it’s a standards committee issue.

  Because the standards work has been done, the ball is back in the

implementations' court. That doesn't mean Annex L should be the default behavior. It would be nice to have it as an option, though.

                David

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list