From 351907931150389763 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10f5bc,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c X-Google-Attributes: gid10f5bc,public X-Google-Thread: 110292,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c X-Google-Attributes: gid110292,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1149ec,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c X-Google-Attributes: gid1149ec,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Thread: 102b75,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c X-Google-Attributes: gid102b75,public From: gdr11@cl.cam.ac.uk (Gareth Rees) Subject: Re: And you thought that the Pentium bug was bad! (Get a load of this!) Date: 1995/06/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 104874059 distribution: world references: <3s2las$1br@hustle.rahul.net> <3s46bi$3qe@devel.dvstsol.demon.co.uk> organization: University of Cambridge, England newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.std.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch,comp.software.testing Nick Gorham wrote: > The simple way to fix this "compilor bug" is not to write code like > this. Jonathan Allan replied: > Ah! The dreaded "Don't *DO* that!" answer. Exactly. The C standard is bad enough, with "undefined" in so places, without perfectly legal constructs being unusable too. There's no point in having a standard if a compiler writer can just say, "well, no sensible programmer would ever do this, so I won't bother implementing it". -- Gareth Rees