Am 02.02.2016 13:56 schrieb "Serguei TARASSOV" <se...@arbinada.com>: > > On 02/02/2016 13:41, fpc-pascal-requ...@lists.freepascal.org wrote: >> >> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:22:01 +0100 >> From: Jonas Maebe<jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be> >> >> Michael Van Canneyt wrote on Tue, 02 Feb 2016: >> >> [evaluating all arguments to a function/intrinsic] >> >>> >I'm just trying to to put any foaming-at-the-mouth argumentation >>> >using this particular argument in perspective. >> >> I think this is rather disingenuous after your own >> foaming-at-the-mouth hyperbole (?) of reverting all changes and >> temporarily shutting down the svn server if someone else did something >> that you considered to be fundamentally wrong. >> >> >>> >For a correct understanding: The compiler must behave predictable at all >>> >times, no arguing there. But I don't think that iif() having different >>> >semantics than all other functions, is a problem. >> >> Including all other functions called iif(). >> >> >>> >It just needs to be >>> >documented properly. It is a non-issue for me. >> >> It is a deal breaker for me. > > Completely agreed with Jonas. > I'm afraid to stay with FPC 2.6 for the near future and support Delphi compatibility. > Seems, the guys from GNU C are more responsible because of many mission-critical code compiled with.
More responsible?! Apparently you haven't read the one or other report where they f***ed up some code, because they added optimizations that did the wrong(TM) thing. I'll have to check whether I can find that example again... Regards, Sven
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
