Hi Mike,
> On 16 Apr 2019, at 21:05, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> On Apr 15, 2019, at 11:59 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> OK for trunk (after wider testing)?
>
> Didn't we make you a Darwin maintainer yet?
/me is willing .. (given the usual comment about finite time available, of
course)
> Ok.
>
>>
> On Apr 15, 2019, at 11:59 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> OK for trunk (after wider testing)?
Didn't we make you a Darwin maintainer yet?
Ok.
> branches?
Ok.
Hi,
TL;DR
So, it turns out that there’s an interaction between standards wording that
makes an implementation conforming when it has extensions that, when used, make
a program ill-formed (but with no diagnostic required) (see the PR for more
detail).
One might argue that using such extensions
