From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7e60c1d99ae3ffa1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-14 11:14:25 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!b9b19.pppool.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A.Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Announce: The Ultimate SI Units Cracker Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:21:39 +0200 Message-ID: References: <3D809F51.299A6634@despammed.com> <3D8203A1.6931201A@despammed.com> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: b9b19.pppool.de (213.7.155.25) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032027263 1634546 213.7.155.25 (16 [77047]) User-Agent: KNode/0.4 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28974 Date: 2002-09-15T08:21:39+02:00 List-Id: Wes Groleau wrote: > "Dmitry A.Kazakov" wrote: >> Then any discriminant-based solution faces the following problems: >> >> 1. There is no way to force the compiler to remove statically known >> discriminants and calculate expressions on them at compile-time. > > I prefer to look at it as > "There's no rule to prevent a compiler vendor from .... > and no way to prevent a user from selecting that compiler." Is it absolutely true? I mean, ARM precisely defines what is "static" and what is not. So an expression involving static discriminants could be *formally* non-static, even if its outcome were known at compile-time. Thus such an outcome would be not allowed to appear where a static value is expected. -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de