------- Comment #7 from kokseng at ieee dot org 2008-10-29 09:37 ------- The only problem is whether there are codes out there that depend on "NEGATE-and-AND"? Frankly speaking, when I was reminded about the 'nand' comment on gcc manual, only then I remembered many moons ago, I read that line, and also remembered saying to myself "W-T-F". However, many moons later, when I work on porting to other processor and test-the-unit-test, I relied on text-book and historical definition of the term 'NAND'. So, I think it is not an issue of what Intel ICC did, it is matter of getting the semantic of NAND the way any programmer was taught and practiced.
Propagating a misnomer will only guarantee that this issue of " NAND is not NAND but 'N'AND" will come back to haunt every now-and-then. IMHO, it is better to bite the bullet now then swallow a canon later. :-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37908
