This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Is this a gcc bug?
- To: <dewar at gnat dot com>,<geoffk at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Is this a gcc bug?
- From: "Dave Korn" <davek-ml at ntlworld dot com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:51:58 -0000
- Cc: <amylaar at cambridge dot redhat dot com>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <20010115001421.9DD9134D80@nile.gnat.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: <dewar@gnat.com>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:14 AM
> <<It doesn't follow, though, that the printf output is not interleaved
> with the mandatory diagnostics (if any).
> >>
>
> That's different from my reading, my reading is that the mandatory
> diagnostics have to come out even if the section of code is not run.
>
> The printf output comes out only if the section of code is run.
>
> Of course if there are mandatory diagnostics, then exeution is
> undefined in any case.
So when compiling a case like this, we could print out a short and
obtuse error message, and output an executable which when run prints the
long sermon explanation to stderr :)
DaveK