Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Shachar,
I don't understand this statement. I suspect that you have a different
mental picture of undefined behavior. The official definition of
undefined behavior is that *anything* may happen.
No. The official definition of undefined behavior is that the behavior
On 09 May 2005 08:15:10 +, Oleg Goldshmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a suggestion. If you post your question to
comp.lang.c++.moderated or to an appropriate gcc forum someone there
will explain what happens, and probably quote the Standard to
you. I'll be happy to learn what the
On 5/9/05, Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Shachar,
I don't understand this statement. I suspect that you have a different
mental picture of undefined behavior. The official definition of
undefined behavior is that *anything* may happen.
No. The
Quoting Oleg Goldshmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Shachar,
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's get one thing clear. NOTHING results in undefined behavior. If
anything resulted in undefined behavior, it would have been impossible
to pass it between caller and callee.
I don't
Amos Shapira wrote:
It's been ages since I used nntp, but I'll give it a try.
No need to use NNTP (if you'll find a useful NNTP server to use it with at all).
Most ISP's (at least all the ones I've ever used) provide reasonable
servers.
Generally news.yourprovider.com works fine, plus you
No need to use NNTP (if you'll find a useful NNTP server to use it
with at all).
Actually, NNTP is very useful for following floss mailing lists without
filling up your inbox (or subscribing just for the time duration of
getting some task done, and then unsubbing), using the gmane server,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example IIRC the specs don't define what free((void *)0) should
do, so it can either return cleanly doing nothing or cause a
segmentation fault depending on the compiler.
Or send an email to your manager suggesting that your salary should be
revised. It may be
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Even stranger is the second warning. If param is not the last named
argument, what is?
Shachar
Ok, just so that I make sure that I'm not talking utter nonsense, I made
that into a complete program and tested. As expected, the compiler's
grim predictions of run
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'm going to mark that off as a compiler bug and ignore it.
Shachar
Answering my own posts today.
g++ 3.4 does not suffer from this problem. I guess it really was a
compiler bug.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you
What Compiler version?
Hetz
On 5/8/05, Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm encountering a strange problem, and would like to hear the list's
ideas on why that would be. The following C++ program:
#include stdarg.h
class test {
public:
virtual ~test();
};
void
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm encountering a strange problem, and would like to hear the list's
ideas on why that would be. The following C++ program:
#include stdarg.h
class test {
public:
virtual ~test();
};
void func( const test param, ... )
{
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm encountering a strange problem, and would like to hear the list's
ideas on why that would be. The following C++ program:
#include stdarg.h
class test {
public:
virtual ~test();
};
void func( const test param, ... )
{
Shachar,
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's get one thing clear. NOTHING results in undefined behavior. If
anything resulted in undefined behavior, it would have been impossible
to pass it between caller and callee.
I don't understand this statement. I suspect that you have a
13 matches
Mail list logo
