------- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 06:55 ------- (In reply to comment #23) > It's too bad the bug is closed just as a duplicate of another bug.
I am sorry that you feel disappointed. I believed that the rationale behind closing this was fairly clear. I tried to answer your concerns without getting into a debate. Point 1), 2) and 3) are about the meaning of undefined behaviour and this have been lengthy discussed in the mailing list. Probably the latest discussion here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-01/msg00881.html More to be found in the archives: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/ About points 4) and 5), gcc-3.4.6 and gcc-4.1.2 are only consistent in the examples you have tried but, as discussed in comment 14, optimization changes code and different code has different behaviour. We strive to give consistent results for defined behavior. And we strive to give the best optimized code without breaking the standards. Again, this has been discussed thoroughly in the mailing list in the context of signed overflow and also strict aliasing (Wstrict-aliasing). It is unlikely that whatever point you made hasn't been covered in a discussion already, this is why gcc developers generally avoid any discussion about undefined behaviour. This is nothing new. -- manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed|2008-01-19 00:22:14 |2008-01-21 06:55:57 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34841
