Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | John David Anglin wrote: | | > This seems pretty clear. C99 requires that storage be allocated | > | >for uninitialized objects, that an indeterminate value be stored | >in the object when the declarator for the object is reached in the | >block, that the last-stored value be retained for the duration of | >the block. | > | I think that is an incorrect interpretation. Remember the standard is | always "as-if" when it gives an implementation approach. Please | show a correct C program that can tell that gcc is not following | the above scheme.
Robert, Recently you have expressed the opinion that sounds to me that GCC is taking too much a cavalier approach to "undefined behaviour". However, as long as you feed that line of thought with reasoning like above, I don't see how the current trend will change. Or did you express that opinion just as a matter of debate? -- Gaby
