On 05/08/2015 11:21 PM, Ángel González wrote: > On 08/05/15 17:19, Martin wrote: > > I'm afraid Andrew email was misguided, appearing as rude. I'm sorry you found it rude. I thought it matched the tone of the OP quite nicely. It certainly was not misguided: nay, it was correct, and pointed the OP to the relevant section of the language specification. Polite but incorrect postings are ten a penny. > gcc has many extensions, and there's no reason it couldn't add this > one, which I agree would be useful. I think you'll find there are not many recent ones. We're a lot less eager to add nonstandard extensions to GCC than we were in the past. Specifying them precisely is very difficult, and we'd have to add carefully-written tests. In the past GCC extensions have been rather underspecified and have led to problems. The question is whether this particular extension is worth the effort. In any case it would take some time, so it isn't going to be a solution for the OP's current problem. The other question is whether accepting nonstandard code by default is wise. We have seen that some compilers used by the OP did, and led him to believe that his code was correct, even to the extent of believing that GCC was defective. Andrew.
