This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
- To: torvalds at transmeta dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 05 Jan 2002 15:17:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
- Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201041625570.8411-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 04.01.02 in <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201041625570.8411-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> > <<Sure. Except is must say _something_. It must be defined behaviour.
> > That's what "implementation defined" means.
> > >>
> >
> > Defined does NOT mean it works as you want. For instance a C compiler
> > would be free to say.
> >
> > If you cast an integer to a pointer, the system disk will be deleted. This
> > is an undesirable implementation, but not a non-conforming one.
>
> Yes. I agree. But the compiler has to say _what_ it does. It can't just
> avoid the issue.
And that is *exactly* what gcc *does*, your claims to the contrary
notwithstanding.
> Yes yes yes. But gcc does NOT document what it does.
This is false.
More, it is *obviously* false.
Frankly, Linus, you're simply wrong here. End of story.
MfG Kai