Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
| If we're going to guarantee this stuff for the future, we'll have to | fix the bug, make sure it's doesn't destabilize the compiler and write | some test cases. If we're really serious about it we should make it a | documented extension to C. if this is not going to be documented, then it does not worth spend time on trying to fix it. In fact, if it is not going to be documented then I would suggest we leave it as is. Furthermore, I've read people suggesting that we are gratuitously broking code. That is misleading. The code was invoking undefined behaviour and, before, we did not make any explicit guarantee about the semantics. It is one thing to argue for changing gear; but, one should try to stay in "honest bounds". | I'm not exactly opposed to that, but I do | wonder if it's the best use of people's time. But this is free | software, and people choose their own priorities. Yup. We just have to make sure we don't end up in a mess. -- Gaby