------- Comment #46 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 16:42 ------- (In reply to comment #45) > Congratulations. Are you done now? > What else are you hoping to achieve? > Is this a cry for attention?
No much really. Now it is all up to the community. I just want everyone to know that computing pointer subtraction is not guaranteed to be accurate on GCC. My personal gains will be (possibly): 1) Maybe the community can force GCC to start making such guarantees. That would help all of us. The example I posted there is real, I'm not making anything up! 2) Showing all of you that a compiler should be more than just C99. A good compiler need to be more than C99. And an excelent compiler must be more than just C99. All of you confine your answers to C99 forgetting that a compiler will be used in many real world situation, for example in memory mapped devices. 3) Showing Michael that he says a lot of crap. Show him that he just shot himself in the foot for not thinking before speaking. Maybe get him to think before making claims? Even with all my warnings he didn't think of people that compile for memory mapped devices? He should think before he says something, he is not just some random guy like me, he is a representative of the GCC project and his answers (crap included) are GCC-binding. I confess I get some satisfaction out of that 3rd item. But I would do it even if I had the first 2. The community at large thinks more like I do, and expect the pointer subtraction to always return accurate results. I'm just warning them. I'm not lying. I'm not distorting anything. If it helps someone then good, otherwise it can«t harm anyone, right? That's it, really. As for the bugs I reported I have no further hope. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
