https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a28046e215307cf11c7a133c8b33dc0c0bcf74ec
commit r15-1883-ga28046e215307cf11c7a133c8b33dc0c0bcf74ec Author: Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> Date: Sun Jul 7 22:01:40 2024 +0200 doc: Remove dubious example around bug reporting gcc: * doc/bugreport.texi (Bug Criteria): Remove dubious example. Diff: --- gcc/doc/bugreport.texi | 5 ----- 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/bugreport.texi b/gcc/doc/bugreport.texi index b7cfb5dd6ae..7a603241f77 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/bugreport.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/bugreport.texi @@ -50,11 +50,6 @@ However, you must double-check to make sure, because you may have a program whose behavior is undefined, which happened by chance to give the desired results with another C or C++ compiler. -For example, in many nonoptimizing compilers, you can write @samp{x;} -at the end of a function instead of @samp{return x;}, with the same -results. But the value of the function is undefined if @code{return} -is omitted; it is not a bug when GCC produces different results. - Problems often result from expressions with two increment operators, as in @code{f (*p++, *p++)}. Your previous compiler might have interpreted that expression the way you intended; GCC might