Can you clarify this? I thought that it wasn't actually a miscompilation, rather a different choice in undefined behavior.
Did I misunderstand, or is this just an area where we feel we need to be compatible with gcc? - Daniel On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> >> On Jan 29, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote: >> >>>> Very nice Doug, please make these errors though. Some code bases >>>> build with many warnings, so this can be easy to miss. Thanks for >>>> working on this! >>> >>> >>> FWIW, follow-on patches (one still to-be-finished) get this down to >>> only a very minor difference that we warn about (different behavior >>> when GNU array-range designated initializers have side effects). >> >> I'm still not very comfortable about only warning about cases where >> we miscompile the code. The "different behavior" really is a >> miscompilation in my opinion, do you agree? > > > Yes, it's a miscompilation. I'll make this an "unsupported" error in > CodeGen, so that semantic clients aren't affected. > > - Doug > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
