"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> I'm going to regret this, but... I don't follow. How is Kai's testcase
>> different from:
>>
>> int ii;
>> double dd;
>> void foo (int *ip, double *dp)
>> {
>> *ip = 15;
>> ii = *ip;
>> *dp = 1.5;
>> dd = *dp;
>> }
>>
>> void test (void)
>> {
>> union { int i; double d; } u;
>> foo (&u.i, &u.d);
>> }
>
> You have read DR#236 and the subsequent discussions in the past five
> years' WG14 papers (e.g. N1111), right?
No, and I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, or describe what is
and isn't valid. And I didn't realise my message justified such
a snide response... but perhaps it did.
I was just trying to point out that Ian's claim that the original code
was valid doesn't reflect what GCC implements.
Richard
