> I apologize for presenting something which appears to be a strawman > argument. That would never be my intent. Let me restate: I don't > think gcc should ever insert a trap call for undefined code. We > should only insert a trap call for code which will provably trap. > > We're currently breaking an existing free software program which > formerly worked although it relied on undefined behaviour. Therefore, > I think that changing this would not be a complete waste of time. > Obviously I would never ask anybody else to work on it. > > I personally don't agree that this needs to be a documented extension. > I'm simply going on a more general rule which I tried to state above: > I don't think we should insert a trap call for undefined code. > > Ian >
Exactly as I think. What do we do if compiler ICE generating code for valid C syntax with defined behavior? Fix it! Why should we go another way for valid C syntax with undefined behavior? I was really surprised going deep in that issue. Its no excuse that generated code will have platform-depend semantic, natural way is just fix the ICE and does not cover with a trap.
