Paul Eggert wrote: > On 10/12/10 14:28, Jim Meyering wrote: >> This feels like enough of a technicality that I'd prefer to defer it. > > Well, my suspicion is that some C compilers simply refuse to compile > the construct, as they're entitled to do. I vaguely recall that > happening in the past. No big deal of course.
Could well be. If fixing this decreases by one the number of bug reports, then it'll have been worth applying, and I can think of at least one test-system-menagerie where it may well affect several. So go ahead and push that after all. > You're right about the word "regression": I should have called it a "warning" > or "compile-time issue" or something like that, since it's not a run-time > problem on all practical porting hosts.
