[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Arithmetic Shift
From: |
Andrew W. Nosenko |
Subject: |
Re: Arithmetic Shift |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:27:10 +0200 |
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 05:39, Bob Friesenhahn
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>>
>> Excuse me? Why do you think that preprocessor should match the
>> behavior of compiler???
>
> Excuse me? Why do you think that the behavior of the compiler should be
> consistent? :-)
>
>> Why, why system's /usr/bin/cpp that come from GCC should match to
>> Clang's behavior? Or ICC's behavior? Remember: Accordingly to your
>> logic, if it doesn't match, then it is invalid. Why? And if ICC and
>> Clang interpret -1 >> 1 differently, then it renders GCC's CPP
>> constantly invalid?
>
> Since you mention Clang (LLVM-based) then it is worth pointing out that
> final code generation may be delayed and so it is possible that the CPU type
> finally selected may not match the CPU type on which the original tests were
> executed. Part of the behavior depends on the CPU.
Yes. You absolutely right. And run-time check idea proposed by Ben
is the best from the reliability point of view (of course after fixing
the typo :-)
--
Andrew W. Nosenko <address@hidden>
Re: Arithmetic Shift, Ben Pfaff, 2010/12/10
Re: Arithmetic Shift, Paul Eggert, 2010/12/10
Re: Arithmetic Shift, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2010/12/11
Re: Arithmetic Shift, Paul Eggert, 2010/12/11
Re: Arithmetic Shift, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2010/12/11
Re: Arithmetic Shift, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2010/12/11