Re: Patch for undefined behaviour in gcc

[Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>]

Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes:

|> Neil Booth <NeilB@earthling.net> writes:
|> 
|> > You said on the kernel mailing list the other day you don't want to
|> > break glibc to fix syslogd.
|> 
|> You did not even understand the argumentation there.  If you would you
|> wouldn't come up with such a stupid argumentation.
|> 
|> > Well, I feel the same about cpp and glibc.
|> 
|> You are breaking code which worked for ages.  It is 100% reliable in
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> the context we are using it in and issuing the warning is plainly
|> wrong.  Use the options which select ISO C as the language and issue
|> the warning then.  The warning is simply wrong in this context.

Show me where this is documented as a GCC extension.  I cannot find it
anywhere in the GCC docs.

Using an undocumented feature is a Bad Thing.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                  "And now for something
SuSE Labs                                        completely different."
Andreas.Schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg