Re: Static vs dynamic evaluation anomaly?

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org>]

Adam Beneschan wrote:
> 
> Hmmm.  This is certainly not the way I would expect a "perform this
> check" or "don't perform this check" flag to work.  To me, if the
> semantics of the language say that a value should be reduced by a
> modulus, then it should always be reduced regardless of what flags are
> present.  The only effect I'd expect a flag like this to have is in a
> case where performing a check would raise an exception; then not
> performing the check would have different behavior (possibly returning
> an out-of-range value or reading out-of-range memory or dying on an
> invalid memory access or something).  But I wouldn't expect any change
> in behavior in a case where no exception is raised even with checking
> turned on.

I understand your logic; I'm not even saying I disagree. But perhaps the 
compiler writer's view is that it's OK to store the larger value as long 
as the extra bits are never used. Then the error is in the I/O, which is 
using the extra bits.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"What I wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it."
Annie Hall
42