On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
How similar is this to the list of implementation-defined behavior in the C standard? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
