Proposal for Requiring Save/Restore of Sets and Tags

[Tim Tautges]

I like to think of it as the Harrison Bergeron test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron)...

- tim

On 10/21/2010 12:04 PM, Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 11:35 AM, Carl Ollivier-Gooch wrote:

>>
>> My memory is that we had already agreed that an implementation is free
>> to skip expensive (and even cheap) checks when compiled in release mode,
>> though it should do all checks in debug mode.  The latter is very
>> important to help developers debug code, but once it's working (i.e.,
>> nothing stupid being done by accident), a lot of those checks are
>> unnecessary, so turning them off for release code is no problem.
>> Conditionally-defined macros will do this.  As Mark said, there are
>> run-time configurable methods for this, too, though I suspect they add a
>> small amount of overhead in practice.
>>
>
> You are stating that implementations must conform to a standard behavior of
> prohibiting cyclical links.  And then recommending that we disable such
> restrictions in the version/build of the code that will be used in practice.
>   Then why even make this a requirement?  What's the point of making us jump
> through hoops implementing a "strict conformance" build that will only be
> used in practice with the conformance tests?  How much code can we change
> between the two?  Would instead building a copy of the reference
> implementation if strict conformance is requested be okay?
>
> - jason
>

-- 
================================================================
"You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is
   steadfast, because he trusts in you."               Isaiah 26:3

              Tim Tautges            Argonne National Laboratory
          (tautges at mcs.anl.gov)      (telecommuting from UW-Madison)
          phone: (608) 263-8485      1500 Engineering Dr.
            fax: (608) 263-4499      Madison, WI 53706