gcc3 vs 176.gcc

[Richard Henderson]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:10:25PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Making it an error is no good since we don't know that any particular
> > function ever gets executed.  (You could compile it into a call to
> > abort(), though.)
> 
> This is an odd way of looking at things.  Consider code that accesses
> a private data member in C++ without permission.

That's the difference between undefined behaviour and a constraint
violation.  Code with undefined behaviour must compile.


r~