From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id CB1923858D33; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:27:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CB1923858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711672022;
	bh=UJqc1mDqpCUX/O+9C0jHgscf0DiORre7F/JcCnSALJ0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=AFk9DCeII/THqwIncB4qrB7QUtuee/avK97J+0Boxs0SYxozt1LjnoR2zofkSBOe8
	 p6pMBQiKoFECzgXd1YOmDxQbsOIMh25nzF1tHvVibNervczaG3F7jqB90G2hxOQqBN
	 XQjhGIh7cEkO0N+SkdjkFpNI3JO25DC3XZXPSOtM=
From: "harald at gigawatt dot nl" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix
 misconception.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:27:01 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: harald at gigawatt dot nl
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-114526-4-rIwyX7Mj1q@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114526-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114526-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114526

Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |harald at gigawatt dot nl

--- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Actually it is a required diagnostic.

It is not.

> See PR 11234 for explanation on how.

As acknowledged by PR 11234's reporter in his comment #10 there, the
description of the bug explains why such code is undefined, but not why it
violates any syntax rule or constraint. Indeed, it violates no syntax rule =
or
constraint and accordingly no diagnostic is required, the reporter has since
agreed.=