------- Comment #46 from rogerio at rilhas dot com  2010-08-13 16:42 -------
(In reply to comment #45)
> Congratulations.  Are you done now?
> What else are you hoping to achieve?
> Is this a cry for attention?

No much really. Now it is all up to the community. I just want everyone to know
that computing pointer subtraction is not guaranteed to be accurate on GCC.

My personal gains will be (possibly):

1) Maybe the community can force GCC to start making such guarantees. That
would help all of us. The example I posted there is real, I'm not making
anything up!

2) Showing all of you that a compiler should be more than just C99. A good
compiler need to be more than C99. And an excelent compiler must be more than
just C99. All of you confine your answers to C99 forgetting that a compiler
will be used in many real world situation, for example in memory mapped
devices.

3) Showing Michael that he says a lot of crap. Show him that he just shot
himself in the foot for not thinking before speaking. Maybe get him to think
before making claims? Even with all my warnings he didn't think of people that
compile for memory mapped devices? He should think before he says something, he
is not just some random guy like me, he is a representative of the GCC project
and his answers (crap included) are GCC-binding.

I confess I get some satisfaction out of that 3rd item. But I would do it even
if I had the first 2. The community at large thinks more like I do, and expect
the pointer subtraction to always return accurate results. I'm just warning
them. I'm not lying. I'm not distorting anything. If it helps someone then
good, otherwise it can«t harm anyone, right?

That's it, really. As for the bugs I reported I have no further hope.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265