Follow-up Comment #5, bug #62398 (project groff):
[comment #4 comment #4:] > That tells us what one compiler on one platform does, which is of limited usefulness for a package that needs to compile in multiple environments. > > If the C++ standard says this is the defined behavior, then the proposed replacement code is functionally equivalent to the existing code. > > If the standard leaves this behavior undefined, then there's a problem with the existing code. > > If the standard defines the behavior but some compiler is known to be noncompliant, that's a different problem--arguably not ours. I would also add that having a null pointer is not itself a problem in C or C++--as long as it is not dereferenced. Such pointers are commonly used, in what Tony Hoare called his "billion dollar mistake" [https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Null-References-The-Billion-Dollar-Mistake-Tony-Hoare/]. There may be a code hygiene issue here but unless it rises to the level of causing operational problems in groff, the ticket severity must remain "minor". If a contributor would like to audit the code for problems like this, prepare patches, and regression-test them, that would be welcome. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62398> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
