On 3/21/23 12:12, Alexander Monakov wrote:
Yes, it’s better to know the details of languages standard. -:)
However, I don’t think that this is a realistic expectation to the compiler
users: to know all the details of a language standard.
Umm, they really do need to know that stuff.
If the developer fails to understand the language standard, then they're
likely going to write code that is ultimately undefined or doesn't behave in
they expect. How is the compiler supposed to guess what the developer
originally intended? How should the compiler handle the case when two
developers have different understandings of how a particular piece of code
should work? In the end it's the language standard that defines how all this
stuff should work.
Failure to understand the language is a common problem and we do try to emit
various diagnostics to help developers avoid writing non-conformant code. But
ultimately if a developer fails to understand the language standard, then
they're going to be surprised by the behavior of their code.
W h a t.
This subthread concerns documenting the option better ("Without clearly
documenting such warnings ...").
Are you arguing against adding a brief notice to the documentation blurb for
the -ffp-contract= option?
I was merely chiming in on Qing's statement that it is not realistic to
expect users to know the details of the language standard.
Jeff
