[m-dev.] Re: Bug in determinism analysis

[Peter Schachte]

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Fergus Henderson wrote:

> Currently the semantics say that with `--strict-sequential', everything
> is left-to-right, except as required by the modes.  So this example is
> required to loop.  But if we change switch detection so that it
> continues past function calls, then this program would not loop;

Why can't you stop at the first call only when --strict-sequential is
specified?  Is it important that the compiler accept the same programs
regardless of operational semantics?  If so, why?

If you ever add a real --no-reorder-conj switch that means what it says (as
Lee has requested), that will certainly affect what programs are accepted.


-Peter Schachte			| Patriotism is the last refuge of a
pets at cs.mu.OZ.AU		| scoundrel. -- Samuel Johnson, 7 Apr. 1775 
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pets/	| 
PGP key available on request	|