On Friday, July 22, 2005, at 06:28 PM, Geoff Keating wrote:
I am discussing here only with what GCC *could* do, and still be standards-conforming. What it *should* do is a different > conversation.
You will have to explain the benefits to me of having discussions on this list of discussing the limits of how we can mis-read the standard. I just don't see the benefits. I think the place for such discussions would be on an standards body list dedicating to word smithing the standards into such a shape to to be impervious to such attempts.
I'd rather discuss what is best for our users, now, and in the future, how we'd like to see the standard evolve, the ways in which the standard language is wrong and how we should interpret it and so on...
To the unaided eye, you seem to be telling us how gcc should behave, if that isn't your intention, could you please start with how you think gcc should behave, then launch into why how that behavior can be seen to conflict with the standard, if the standard is read in a particular way, that would help us understand your position better.
