Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 18:28, Joe Buck wrote:
That's what we have standards for: so that compilers work the same way
for standard-conformant code.
And we have de facto standards that you just want to ignore.
No, conflicting "de facto" behaviors (certainly not standards), that
cannot all be resolved. In this case, we have to worry about past
gcc behavior and behavior of foreign compilers. The former is far
more important. The burden of introducing gratuitous incompatibilities
with existing code is very high. It is met if the standard insists
on a change, or if everyone agrees that a change is important enough
to tolerate the incompatibility. It is clear that in this case neither
case holds. So given the argument for change has failed to create a
consensus, it fails and should be ignored.
