On 3/25/07, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I couldn't find one so I've filed PR #31359. Apologies if it's a duplicate.
I will again say, "undocumented extensions" don't exist (except for the case where the documentation is in the source and this was not one of those cases). This was just accidently working before and now it does not work the way you expected it to work. Well considering this undefined bevahior, I think openssl should just fix their code. It is not like this was a documented extension to begin with, it just was accident the behavior changed to be more like what the behavior should have been to begin with. If you want working code, then write in C and not some language which you think is C (yes GNU C has extensions and some of them are not well thought out or documented, does not mean we will add new ones or make a current behavior of GCC defined for good, another good example of where this comes up is from signed integer overflow or aliasing rules). But in this example, we already have a warning at the same time we cause a trap. I think really openssl should not depend on undefined behavior in general to be portable anyways. Even if we make this an extension, some other compiler might decide this code should break in the same way as it is right now as the behavior is undefined. -- Pinski
