On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 02:47 +0100, Andreas Bogk wrote:
> I'm exactly talking about the semantics of "undefined" here. It would > be immensely reassuring if a compiler would at least interpret this as > "unspecified, but consistent". Even better would be a defined and > documented semantics for everything left undefined by the standard. I have read the admonitions to have this thread end with the good final words about what is causing all this: a language issue. Still, what you are saying here is that a compiler should decide that the meaning of "undefined" be defined. If you know what you want to happen on your microprocessor, it seems much simpler to just give it suitable instructions (you know how) than to add a decision tree of GCC switches that will essentially establish another non-portable language in itself, in a most complicated way (as per the suggestion of Paul Schlie, considering the number of ifs in the compiler control language I see there.) Do you C the facts? ;-) Georg
