Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:>Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:>Note that in a context that requires a constant expression, overflow is>
a constraint violation. For example, a case label like:
>
case (INT_MAX + 1) * 0:
>
must be diagnosed at compile time.
gcc disagrees with you.
What makes you think so?
>
[...]
I'm skipping this and proceeding on to the original question.
Why?
You made a statement, "gcc disagrees with you". I demonstrated,
in text that you snipped, that gcc does in fact agree with me.
You were wrong. I don't know the basis of your error, so I asked.
Or maybe I'm missing something, and you had a valid point that I
didn't understand.
You're not required to answer my question, which I think was
an extremely reasonable one, but quoting it and then explicitly
refusing to answer it is pointlessly rude.
I'd like to know whether you still think you were right. If so,
I'd like to see your explanation. If not, an admission that you
made a mistake would be appreciated. But I expect neither from you.
[SNIP]
I see no basis for this belief. My conclusions are based on what
the C standard actually says, rather than guesses about some
unstated "intentions". I think you would do well to reach your
conclusions based more on the actual text of the C standard, and
less on your interpretation of what the text was "intended" to
mean.
The actual text of the standard implies that 42 is not an expression.
I rely on the obvious intent to conclude that it is.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.