This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead dot org>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- Cc: VANDROVE at vc dot cvut dot cz (Petr Vandrovec), pkoning at equallogic dot com (Paul Koning), trini at kernel dot crashing dot org, velco at fadata dot bg, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, linuxppc-dev at lists dot linuxppc dot org
- Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:59:39 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- References: <200201022239.OAA21717@atrus.synopsys.com>
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