[LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses

[Philip Reames]

On 07/02/2015 04:44 PM, David Keaton wrote:
> On 07/02/2015 03:17 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote:
>> You want to redefine ["won't break the program"], by specifying a new 
>> abstract machine, which is
>> more conservative than standard C/C++. The proper way to do that would,
>> I believe, be to work towards setting up a working group within the
>> relevant committees, and come up with a uniformly accepted definition
>> for this abstract machine, which could then be implemented (assuming
>> there is, indeed, wide enough agreement in the implementer community –
>> something that does not look at all likely) by next-generation 
>> compilers.
>
>      This work has already been done in Annex L of the C standard, 
> which provides an optional stricter abstract machine.  As far as I 
> know, no implementations have attempted to support Annex L yet.
Do you have a link to the relevant text?  I've never heard of this, and 
a quick google search doesn't turn up anything relevant. Wikipedia knows 
about a set of "analyzability features", but that doesn't sounds like 
what you're talking about?
>
>> Point is – I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.
>>
>> This isn’t an llvm-dev issue, it’s a standards committee issue.
>
>      Because the standards work has been done, the ball is back in the 
> implementations' court.  That doesn't mean Annex L should be the 
> default behavior.  It would be nice to have it as an option, though.
>
>                     David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev