------- Comment #11 from sparc64 at rediffmail dot com 2007-11-18 14:44 ------- > I agree that we should clarify the documentation if we definitely rule the > code as being invalid.
Since "&&" is a C extension, I believe one can reserve the right to limit how long it extends. But this limitation, which hits only when "optimization" kicks in is very very misleading. And, I find such a limitation spoiling the whole idea of having the extension. For example, the original post posted by "inaoka" tries to pass a pointer loaded with "&&" extension. And, he has run into trouble. The point here is that the "Optimization" rule is very quick to rule out that the usage of "&&" is only for "goto"s. This precludes a beautiful C extension from being as beautiful as it ought to be. It would be really nice on the part of GCC developers to fix this. I am sure this must be a very small thing to fix (apologies if not). Thanks -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28581