This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug rtl-optimization/25609] too agressive printf optimization
- From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 15 Jan 2008 21:49:36 -0000
- Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/25609] too agressive printf optimization
- References: <bug-25609-700@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-15 21:49 -------
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > This will be fixed yesterday if printf("%s\n", s) were equivalent to puts(s) in
> > glibc.
>
> [+] The standard requires them to be equivalent? Per standard, they can't be
> equivalent if both are undefined when NULL is passed, right?
I didn't say the standard requires them to be equivalent. Per standard, two
undefined invocations of printf don't need to be equivalent.
Anyway, if you really want to believe that printf("%s\n",s) and puts(s) should
not have the same effect for defined behaviour, then we will have to agree to
disagree.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25609