This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: C99 conformance bug in gcc-3.1

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>, Momchil Velikov <velco at fadata dot bg>, Tony Finch <dot at dotat dot at>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:18:03 -0700
Subject: Re: C99 conformance bug in gcc-3.1
References: <20020531185830.A9539@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205311016300.23021-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk> <20020531210613.A10033@hg.cs.mu.oz.au>

On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 09:06:13PM +1000, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> Well, those are differences in legality (and diagnostics),
> not differences in behaviour.  Each different syntax
> may give you a different subset of the available features,
> but in cases where both are legal, the result is the same.

Yes and no.  The two cases are definitely distinguished within
the compiler all the way though.  For instance, sizeof applies
to a zero-length-array, but not to a flexible array member.

r~

References:
- Re: C99 conformance bug in gcc-3.1
  - From: Fergus Henderson
- Re: C99 conformance bug in gcc-3.1
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: C99 conformance bug in gcc-3.1
  - From: Fergus Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]