Re: Mailing list reconfiguration: VERP Sender: header affected

| From: Martin Liška | Which we recommend in the ection Filtering here: | https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html Thanks for the useful information. That document suggests: * ^List-Id: .*<.*.gcc.gnu.org>$ Surely this should be: * ^List-Id: .*<.*.gcc\.gnu\.org>$

Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

| From: Mark Wielaard | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest. | Why was there no public discussion on this? Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message. (Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have contributed to other copylefted code bases.) It is important that the pool be

UTF-8 quotation marks in diagnostics

Several of us don't want UTF-8 quotation marks in diagnostics in our environment (Jove subshells). We'd like a way to turn them off. We don't think that they are a bad idea but they are bad in our environment. English-language diagnostic mess

Re: volatile semantics

| From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | void foo(void) { | > |int *x = 4; | > | *x = 3; | The point I was attempting to make, was that just because a specified | statement's effective behavior/side-effects are not well defined, it doesn't | mean that it's clearly specif

Re: Pointers in comparison expressions

| From: Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org | Subject: Re: Pointers in comparison expressions | | On 2005-07-17 12:55:38 -0400, Paul Koning wrote: | > Are you sayinvg that a-b is not always "guaranteed to work" when a | > and b point to elements of the same array? That sounds

Re: volatile semantics

| From: Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 21:36 -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: | > | From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | > | After many exchanges via private mails and | > | looking at the various reports related to this issue, it h

Re: volatile semantics

| From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | | | From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | | | After many exchanges via private mails and | | | looking at the various reports related to this issue, it

Re: volatile semantics

| From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | [...] | | | > I think that is urgent. | | No offense, but everyone thinks the problems that affect them are the | | most urgent. | | miscompilation of KDE was declared urgent; I hope bug affecting code

Re: volatile semantics

| From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | After many exchanges via private mails and | looking at the various reports related to this issue, it has become | clear to me that the interpretations offered to justify why GCC is | behaving the way it does seem to go beyond what can be inferred.

Re: volatile semantics

| From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The way I see it is that people who designed and wrote the standard | offer their view and interpretation of of they wrote and some people | are determined to offer a different interpretation so that they can | claim they are well-founded to apply th

Re: volatile semantics

[I'm just a tourist here. I don't subscribe to the gcc list. I don't hack on gcc itself. I'm just posting because this bug hits me and didn't seem to be analyzed correctly. I have participated in the C standardization process for perhaps 20 years. Now that I look at the GCC list archives, I se

Re: volatile semantics

Sorry for the very late response. It is actually triggered by the bugzilla entry http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22278 The motivating example, abstracted from a misbehaving part of X, is: void test (char *addr) { *((volatile char *) addr); } In