4 ms·

I'm not the one who downvoted you, but the counterargument is that such a target-specific approach prevents any reasonable effort to consistently define the sem

I'm not the one who downvoted you, but the counterargument is that such a target-specific approach prevents any reasonable effort to consistently define the semantics of any programming language. "On x86_amd_this_and_that processor the program means this, on arm_64_some_version it means that and on x86_intel_something again something else". This would not just be hell, it would be unworkable. In other words, any approach other than an abstract machine model is doomed. Ideally this abstract machine is rather close to real world machines, but it can't be identical to all of them, nor is it reasonable to start special casing.

userbinator 6y ago
but the counterargument is that such a target-specific approach prevents any reasonable effort to consistently define the semantics of any programming language. Why does there even need to be? There's already undefined behaviour to take into account the variance. Otherwise it's just making things worse for programmers who want to easily solve real problems on real hardware, not the absurd theoretical world of spherical cows.
- jsgf 6y ago
  Undefined isn't the same as implementation defined. "Undefined" means you're not even talking about C any more. "Implementation defined" means which of the allowable semantics the implementors happened to choose.