Messages in this thread | | | From | David Woodhouse <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix | Date | Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:59:39 +0000 |
| |
jbuck@synopsys.COM said: > > An ICE, while it's not quite what was expected and it'll probably get > > fixed, is nonetheless a perfectly valid implementation of 'undefined > > behaviour'.
> Not for GCC it isn't. Our standards say that a compiler crash, for > any input whatsoever, no matter how invalid (even if you feed in line > noise), is a bug. Other than that we shouldn't make promises, though > the old gcc1 behavior of trying to launch a game of rogue or hack when > encountering a #pragma was cute.
True - sorry, I forgot where this was crossposted. I didn't mean to imply that GCC folks would _accept_ an ICE and not fix it - just that strictly speaking, it is a perfectly valid response, as is the unintended observed behaviour of the output code which actually started this thread.
-- dwmw2
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |