[Thus spake Christos Zoulas ("CZ: ") 9:25am...]

CZ: I don't think so either, but when you ask the compiler to call printf(),
CZ: and it calls puts() because it `knows' it is better, what else are you
CZ: left with?

It was once said that "programmers should avoid chumminess with the
compiler."  Richie or Kernighan.  I think it applies in parallel to the
compiler, in that the compiler should avoid chumminess with the programmer
by "knowing" what would be more efficient in this situation, UNLESS THE
PROGRAMMER EXPLICITLY REQUESTS SUCH OPTIMIZATION, say somewhere around
-O9 (IMO).

CZ: I am fine with disabling the optimization, but as I said, it will make
CZ: our compiler different. I would rather convince the gcc team to consider
CZ: turning the bogus behavior off permanently.

This egregious behaviour in a compiler is absurd; I think most any other
standard of a language would classify such a compiler as "broken, not
to be used until fixed, and to be fixed yesterday."

To have puts/fputs spit out "(null)" would be a much better way to handle
this than to dump core.  I don't think we should have to even cpp::#define
this based on __gcc_version__ or whatever they call it these days -- when
they fix the compiler, we revert the code.

				--*greywolf;
--