Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | "has the semantics that Gabriel Dos Reis wants" is not an evaluable | > | predicate! | > You completely missed the point, but I guess it is consistent with | > your denying that there is any connection between C or C++ and | > hardware. | | So, let's make this MUCH more specific. Gabriel, on the MIPS chip, | do you think there is something in the definition of C that leads | you to prefer wrap around semantics to trapping semantics?
When it comes down for the compiler writer to chose something for undefined behaviour, it is hardly solely based on the C standard. In fact, the C standard is of much less help because it gaves up. So, your question is inconsistency in terms. -- Gaby
