------- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 02:32 ------- (In reply to comment #82) > > Show an official page. > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html > "In particular, bugs caused by invalid code have a simple work-around: fix the code." > "With each release, we try to make G++ conform closer to the ISO C++ standard (available at http://www.ncits.org/cplusplus.htm). We have also implemented some of the core and library defect reports (available at http://www.open- std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html & http://www.open- std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html respectively)." > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html > "GCC 3.4 has many improvements in the C++ frontend. Before reporting a bug, please make sure it's really GCC, and not your code, that is broken." > There are more. > -- Pinski
Thanks, Pinski. These I have read. What I have not is that a PRoblem resulting from an deficiency of the C++ Standard is not considered a PRoblem. It is clear that many C++ gurus do think it a deficiency of the C++ Standard. And it is arguable whether the OP's code is broken or not. But this is not what I want to argue here. My current request is exactly to tell the user that his code might be broken (unspecified and non-portable) under the current C++ Standard. I do not think it is against any rule of the GCC community. Yongwei -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910
