On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 11:51 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On 2/21/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jeffrey A Law wrote: > > > > > My feeling? Absolutely, TYPE_MIN_VALUE and TYPE_MAX_VALUE should > > > represent the set of values that an object of the type may hold. > > > Any other definition effectively renders those values useless. > > > > I agree -- with the obvious caveat that it need not be the case that the > > object actually have that value if the program has invoked undefined > > behavior. So, if you have an 5-bit type, stored in a byte, and you > > manage to get 255 in that byte, and you read the value, you might see > > 255 at runtime -- but only because your program was busted anyhow. > > Right. And if Ada wants to test for this condition using 'Valid, it should do > the range comparison in the base type and use a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR > to get to the object of the base type from the 5-bit-type to avoid VRP > optimizing away the comparison. Agreed wholeheartedly.
Jeff
