------- Comment #7 from dbb at hadenmead dot com 2006-01-29 00:36 ------- Please forgive my persistence, but :-
> Again this is a bug in your code/Semi in solaris and not in GCC. Possibly in Solaris (non-compliance with standard), but the code I have supplied contains no bugs : the code should simply not compile on a system which fails to mention isinf() in its header files and does not provide it in its libraries. > isinf is a standard function (it does not have to be implemented as a macro). As far as I can make out, the C standards require isinf() to be defined as a macro (see http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/math.h.html). But I don't think that's the point at issue. If it IS implemented as a function, then it seems to me that if it (or any other standard function) is not available in the standard libraries at compile time, then compilation should fail, regardless of the level of optimisation and regardless of the context in which the function call appears in the code. The (bug-free) code I have provided shows that success or failure of compilation with optimisation (under 4.0.2 but not 3.3.2) depends on the context in which isinf() is called. > Then autoconf should be more clever, for example by compiling w/o optimization > or by using a robust test or by passing -fno-builtin to the compiler. Yes of course these suggestions would work fine, but they would be in the nature of workarounds. I was merely trying to illustrate that others also seem to believe that the absence of a definition (macro or function) and/or the absence of the function itself should cause a compile-time error. -- dbb at hadenmead dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26005
