home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.bug
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!netcom.com!rfg
- From: rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
- Subject: OOPS! Make that 15 GCC 2.3.3 bugs!
- Message-ID: <1992Dec30.092723.23505@netcom.com>
- Sender: gnulists@ai.mit.edu
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- Distribution: gnu
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:27:23 GMT
- Approved: bug-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu
- Lines: 35
-
- It has been brought to my attention that 5 of the 20 bugs I reported for
- the recent 2.3.3 release of GCC were in fact non-bugs.
-
- Specifically, #1, #16, and #17 all involve undefined behavior, and thus,
- diagnostics are not strictly required in those cases.
-
- Separately, items #14 and #15 were simply bogus. I claimed that GCC was
- failing to issue errors for erroneous code when in fact the code given
- in the examples for those items was perfectly legitimate ANSI C code.
-
- I sincerly apologize for any confusion these mistakes might have caused.
-
- To the best of my knowledge, all of the other 15 items do in fact repre-
- sent deviations (on GCC's part) from the letter of the ANSI C standard.
-
-
- // Ron ("Loose Cannon") Guilmette uucp: ...uunet!lupine!segfault!rfg
- //
- // "On the one hand I knew that programs could have a compelling
- // and deep logical beauty, on the other hand I was forced to
- // admit that most programs are presented in a way fit for
- // mechanical execution, but even if of any beauty at all,
- // totally unfit for human appreciation."
- // -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
- --
-
- // Ron ("Loose Cannon") Guilmette uucp: ...uunet!lupine!segfault!rfg
- //
- // "On the one hand I knew that programs could have a compelling
- // and deep logical beauty, on the other hand I was forced to
- // admit that most programs are presented in a way fit for
- // mechanical execution, but even if of any beauty at all,
- // totally unfit for human appreciation."
- // -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
-
-