From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19289 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2002 08:20:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19237 invoked by uid 61); 3 Apr 2002 08:20:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020403082049.19236.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, rjk@greenend.org.uk From: rth@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: rth@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, rjk@greenend.org.uk, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/4130: gcc 3.0 -O2 and printf optimization X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: gcc 3.0 -O2 and printf optimization State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: rth State-Changed-When: Wed Apr 3 00:20:49 2002 State-Changed-Why: According to Uli Drepper, whom I consider an authority in this area: The handling of byte sequences which are not valid in the current locale is unspecified. Either result is valid. There is the different result but people writing incorrect code should not get into to way of optimizing code. And there always is the opportunity to compile with -O0. Although -fno-builtin-printf is certainly more palletable than -O0. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=4130