>
> On Oct 26, 2005, at 9:39 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > I still am trying to figure out why this was even brought up if it
> > was only due to ASCII art, that seems silly.
>
> sorry ("I find ascii line art silly"); ;-)
>
> We could do that!
That is just stupid, that is infact would be invalid to what the standards
says so it is not silly at all. What I am trying to say is that
the only reason why this was brought up was because of some little
ASCII art (ASCII art does have its place in comments, see rs6000.c for
an example of where ASCII art actually helps). If there was another
reason, like for an example someone depends on implementation defined
behavior which actually changes the meaning of the code like bitwise operators
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integers-implementation.html#Integers-implementation
Another compiler could define >> with signed types the same as the
unsigned >> (I think there might be such a compiler too).
We could have it defined as such that >> with signed types is the same as >>
with
unsigned types, and the major other compilers do it a different way.
This is one case where changing is much harder and even worse as almost all
people depend on >> with signed types to act like the other compilers.
But since we are not dealing with comments, why this is not a hard decision
to make to stay with what we have already. I am just trying to point
out that it was silly to bring the issue up if it only concerns comments.
-- Pinski
