jbuck@synopsys.COM said:
> > An ICE, while it's not quite what was expected and it'll probably get
> > fixed, is nonetheless a perfectly valid implementation of 'undefined
> > behaviour'.
> Not for GCC it isn't. Our standards say that a compiler crash, for
> any input whatsoever, no matter how invalid (even if you feed in line
> noise), is a bug. Other than that we shouldn't make promises, though
> the old gcc1 behavior of trying to launch a game of rogue or hack when
> encountering a #pragma was cute.
True - sorry, I forgot where this was crossposted. I didn't mean to imply
that GCC folks would _accept_ an ICE and not fix it - just that strictly
speaking, it is a perfectly valid response, as is the unintended observed
behaviour of the output code which actually started this thread.
-- dwmw2- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:18 EST