From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-55839-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30462 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2014 11:27:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30452 invoked by uid 89); 15 Sep 2014 11:27:45 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-lb0-f177.google.com
Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f177.google.com) (209.85.217.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:27:44 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id l4so4250734lbv.36        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.29.1 with SMTP id f1mr27058166lah.47.1410780461370; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.142.7 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1410779226.12412.YahooMailNeo@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1410390231.39617.YahooMailNeo@web140202.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>	<54115917.1040602@redhat.com>	<1410477938.56522.YahooMailNeo@web140205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>	<5412AF85.1080200@redhat.com>	<1410562688.66898.YahooMailNeo@web140201.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>	<5413F0D4.5010806@redhat.com>	<1410748615.48628.YahooMailNeo@web165004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>	<5416A4E1.1010000@redhat.com>	<1410779226.12412.YahooMailNeo@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:27:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdR4074ni68szw14Qq43mXUG590mVkwkvxzUWFfjipEtbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: is portable aliasing possible in C++?
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Hei Chan <structurechart@yahoo.com>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>, "gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2

On 15 September 2014 12:07, Hei Chan wrote:
> Your statement that the trick "is now hallowed by the standard" makes it sounds like at some point GCC won't guarantee it work anymore.

If GCC supports a feature, and that feature is now standardised, why
would GCC stop supporting it?

That would break old code *and* fail to conform to the standard!