> > On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > > I personally like the fact that gcc's behavior does not depend on > > invisible characters > > All other things being equal, this is a nice design goal. I like it > too. Should we break peoples otherwise portable code to have an > implementation defined behavior that no one else has?
but it is not portable code. That is my point. Instead of all this discussion, I went and found all the times this behavior was mentioned and found it was mentioned each year since it was added. I was only mentioned twice last year. Here are the links to the previous discussion for other people's benifit: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-11/msg00105.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01685.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2000-10/msg00117.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-05/msg01032.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-03/msg00130.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-10/msg00012.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-02/msg01181.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-04/msg00543.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-08/msg01118.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-11/msg00267.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-04/msg00603.html -- Pinski
