https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #23 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- On Wed, 2 Nov 2016, txr at alumni dot caltech.edu wrote: > Seven: Given that the question is now under serious debate, IMO > someone involved with gcc development should take the initiative > and responsibility to submit a defect report in order to clarify > the issue. Apparently other compilers don't have this problem - I thought Martin was going to do that (comment#10). The various DR responses in this area suffer from (a) only deciding particular limited cases at most rather than interpreting things more generally, and not being very clear about what they decide, and (b) by not looking at exactly what the special guarantee is meant to relate to, and the different ways that has been interpreted in the past, thereby compounding the confusion from that wording having been written and edited over time by people who interpreted it in different ways, probably each assuming all the other people had interpreted it the same way.
