This is the mail archive of the 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: gcc 4.2 more strict check for "function called through a non-compatible type"

Andrew Haley <> writes:


| If we're going to guarantee this stuff for the future, we'll have to
| fix the bug, make sure it's doesn't destabilize the compiler and write
| some test cases.  If we're really serious about it we should make it a
| documented extension to C.

if this is not going to be documented, then it does not worth spend
time on trying to fix it.  In fact, if it is not going to be
documented then I would suggest we leave it as is.

Furthermore, I've read people suggesting that we are gratuitously
broking code.  That is misleading.  The code was invoking undefined
behaviour and, before, we did not make any explicit guarantee about
the semantics. 
It is one thing to argue for changing gear; but, one should try to
stay in "honest bounds".

| I'm not exactly opposed to that, but I do
| wonder if it's the best use of people's time.  But this is free
| software, and people choose their own priorities.

Yup.  We just have to make sure we don't end up in a mess.

-- Gaby

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