[PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

[Kai Henningsen]

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