Re: GCC and C89 Defect Report 106

[Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>]

On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 10:18:26AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> 
>   In message <20000701213927.A21757@wolery.cumb.org>you write:
>   > On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 09:02:20PM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
>   > > > This is not an important issue, except in so far as it means we are
>   > > > not 100% C89 conformant.
>   > > 
>   > > Could you install these in the testsuite (as compile tests I guess),
>   > > and mark them as xfail, and put in a comment saying that they are from
>   > > DR106?  That way at least we'll remember.
>   > 
>   > I'll do better: here's the fix.  Simple case of code not having been
>   > updated for the recent change that made void an incomplete type.
>   > 
>   > zw
>   > 
>   > 	* c-typeck.c (build_indirect_ref): Use COMPLETE_OR_VOID_TYPE_P
>   > 	and VOID_TYPE_P.
> Fine.

Applied.

>   > 	* gcc.c-torture/compile/20000701-1.c: New test.
> What is the legal status of this code?  ie, did you lift it from the ftp/web
> site in your earlier message, and what is the copyright status of that code?

Yes, I lifted it almost verbatim from the web site.  I don't know what the
copyright situation is - it's a C89 Defect Report, and there's no copyright
tag either on it or at a higher level in the web site.  The author is Ron
Guilmette <rfg@monkeys.com> - I've cc:ed him here.

Ron, the question is whether we can legally take the example code out of
your defect report (#106) and distribute it with GCC's test suite.

zw