Re: [Gm2] no overflow checking ?

[Fischlin Andreas]

And where is current gm2 with respect to this? Sorry for asking, I have none 
handy. Thus, how will <* *> be handled with -fpim?  I hope comment brackets can 
be used, otherwise portability of code might be problematic.

Regards,
Andreas


ETH Zurich
Prof. Dr. Andreas Fischlin
Systems Ecology - Institute of Integrative Biology
CHN E 21.1
Universitaetstrasse 16
8092 Zurich
SWITZERLAND

address@hidden
www.sysecol.ethz.ch

+41 44 633-6090 phone
+41 44 633-1136 fax
+41 79 221-4657 mobile

             Make it as simple as possible, but distrust it!
________________________________________________________________________



On 29/Apr/2011, at 14:07 , Gaius Mulley wrote:

> "Fischlin  Andreas" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> Ok, but AFAIK that does not mean one could not have a compiler option
>> which overrules that exception raising. I would implement such a
>> standard then by having by default the checking on, but a good
>> compiler would allow for full control in the manner I described
>> earlier. Besides, the rules for raising an exception for integer
>> overflow or floating point overflow or underflow, respectively, should
>> be differentiated and not dealt with in one sweep. ;-)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Andreas
> 
> sure, this is the way to go.  ISO also provides source code directives
> which will be used <* *>
> 
> to turn on/off aspects of range checking.  I propose that if -fiso is
> used then all ISO checking will be on by default, whereas if -fpim is
> used this may not necessarily be the case (although for simplicity sake
> it might be better to enable by default).  Certainly there will be
> command line options to disable/enable all aspects of checking (as just
> the integer checking alone will be expensive - too expensive for some
> embedded targets)
> 
> regards,
> Gaius