Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | | > C is | > | > trustworthy (and preferred over SML for that curcial part of the proof | > | > checker) because the mapping of the C code to the generated assembly | > | > code is straighforward and amenable to inspection. | > | | This kind of traceability is of course vital for such | > applications, but | > | it is by no means unique to C, | > Nobody claims it is unique to C. You're after the wrong target. | > | and there is a big difference between saying | > | that C is an assembly language, and that the mapping of C to assembly | > | language is transparent. | > Oh, you denied any connection in previous message. | | Not at all,
> Please do remember that this is hardware dependent. If you have > problems with x86, it does not mean you have the same witha PPC or a > Sparc. But the whole idea of hardware semantics is bogus, since you are assuming some connection between C and the hardware which does not exist. C is not an assembly language. [...] | You did not read anything even vaguely saying that in what I wrote. and you, did you? -- Gaby
