Subject: Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware
From: Thiago Macieira (thiago_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-06 19:46:08
On Saturday, 6 March 2021 15:57:27 PST Vishal Oza via Std-Discussion wrote:
> The base of this idea is to add an undefined behavior clause if one writes
> C++ using bit manipulation in a target machine that does not use binary
> arithmetic in its arithmetic model.
I invite you to make your hardware and, in the process, decide how much of the
last 50 years of software development as well as standardisation memory
models, von Neumann / Harvard / modified Harvard architectures, binary and
hexadecimal notations, among other things, you want to throw away.
*After* you've come up with a reasonable architecture that has a chance of
being anything but an academic experiment, we can talk about implications.
No one in the C++ community, or the C community for that matter, is going to
take seriously a proposal to make UB or even IB something that is today an
underpinning of the design without compelling motivation. You must provide
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering
STD-DISCUSSION list run by email@example.com
Older Archives on Google Groups