From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4796 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2004 09:49:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4780 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2004 09:49:20 -0000 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040331094920.4779.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "zack at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040330234350.14789.s_gccbugzilla@nedprod.com> References: <20040330234350.14789.s_gccbugzilla@nedprod.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug preprocessor/14789] Preprocessor broken X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg03505.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-03-31 09:49 ------- Subject: Re: Preprocessor broken Not so much a bug in those compilers as that they're just not as picky as GCC. This is an instance of what the C standard calls "compile- time undefined behavior" which means a compiler is not obliged to issue an error on this code -- but it isn't obliged to do anything sensible or helpful either. zw -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14789