>> I'm not sure I would agree. GCC needs to know intent (q.v.), > > No, it does not. It needs to follow the language specification: > intent is entirely in the head of the programmer, and they'd > better learn that specification. > >> Sorry to sound argumentative. I'm frustrated when a correct program is >> turned into a misbehaving program :) > > It's not a correct program. Please forgive my ignorance... How, exactly, is it not a correct program? For the program to be ill-formed, it would have to fall into one of the many undefined behavior traps. As far as I know, there's no UB. And how is removing code and causing a SIGILL maintaining the observable behavior required by the as-if rule? The program does not crash a -O0. The program does not crash at -O2 when the code in question is present. The program crashes when the code is removed. Nearly everyone seems to realize the code is needed, and removing it does _not_ produce an equivalent program. Jeff
