This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: don't assume pointer cast to unsigned long is a valid initializer
- From: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, mark at codesourcery dot com, rth at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:06:26 +1100
- Subject: Re: don't assume pointer cast to unsigned long is a valid initializer
- References: <orisv0w6ra.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <43492FE2-4DD1-11D7-A309-003065A77310@apple.com>
On 03-Mar-2003, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 12:10 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >On Mar 3, 2003, Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org> wrote:
> >>You're saying it doesn't work. I said it should work.
> >
> >I've already explained that there are ports in which it can't possibly
> >work, and on most ports your test is redundant with another test we
> >already have. You're trying to force the world to accept your notion
> >that every post must have a relocation that is as wide as a long.
>
> My take on this is, this isn't a testcase for determining ANSI C
> correctness. I think we can agree on this. So, what is it then? It
> would be a testcase that tests a gcc feature. Tests that test gcc
> specific features have been put into the testsuite and are reasonable.
I agree with that. However, such features should be documented.
This particular test case is a test for an *undocumented* gcc feature.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.