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
