On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> a coworker asked me if clang documents how it handles right shifts of >>> signed numbers today. As far as I can tell there's no documentation >>> for this, but I found PR11272 about documenting implementation-defined >>> behavior. The bug suggests just linking to gcc's documentation as a >>> first step, which is what the attached patch does. This isn't quite >>> correct (for example, clang supports UCNs without any flags), but is >>> correct for most things. People can fill in more details over time. >> >> +clang generally matches `gcc's implementation-defined >> +behavior >> <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.1/gcc/C-Implementation.html#C-Implementation>`. >> >> Maybe there's a different wording that does not promise too much? I >> can easily see users relying on this (or complaining about Clang's >> implementation-defined behavior being different from gcc's). > > "generally tries to match"? The "generally" sounded fairly > weasel-wordy to me already. > >> What might help is a list of implementation-defined behaviors with >> quotations from the standard, as a boilerplate for developers to fill >> in. (It is much easier to write documentation when you know what >> exactly you should describe.) > > I don't have a copy of the standard.
Latest working draft in committee mailing: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3485.pdf Current working draft: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
