"D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | The way I see it is that people who designed and wrote the standard | | offer their view and interpretation of of they wrote and some people | | are determined to offer a different interpretation so that they can | | claim they are well-founded to apply their transformations. | | I don't know exactly what you are referring to here. That's OK, I | think.
yes :-) | The standard should stand alone. It should be able to be interpreted | without "insider knowledge". fully agreed. | The standard is quite complicated and intricate. It helps to already | know it when trying to read it. (On the other hand, that same | phenomenon makes it hard for the authors to see its ambiguities.) again agreed. | Generations have worked on improving the standards. Not all of the | changes were made by people who understood what went before. no displute there. | Having said all that, I think that the standard gives no authority to | do the optimization that GCC4 is doing to the code sample I gave. I | included Henry's carefully justified-by-scripture argument. If anyone | disagrees, PLEASE give a careful argument why, siting the Standard. | | If you wish to answer other questions about the standard, I recommend | that the first step would be to read the standard. Arguing by opinion | isn't getting us too far. Again agreed. | PS: thanks for not just ignoring my report. well, feedbacks are always welcome and it would not help us if we did "just ignore" them. After many exchanges via private mails and looking at the various reports related to this issue, it has become clear to me that the interpretations offered to justify why GCC is behaving the way it does seem to go beyond what can be inferred. -- Gaby
