[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: must use gcc builtin?
>> The code is from 2006, hardly ancient. Its library manipulates a
>> va_list as pointer using assignment and subtraction.
Then the code is broken, at least if it makes any pretenses to
Recency is no guarantee of non-brokenness. Indeed, I suspect that (at
least within a decade or so) recency correlats _positively_ with
brokenness, because the more recent code hasn't been subjected to as
much bad-code attrition as older code.
>> I'd like a knob to compile idiomatic C, especially *good* idiomatic
> In my world, code that invokes undefined behaviour is not good
> idiomatic C.
"What he said." The code sketched is well within the realm where I
believe making it explode at compile time is a good thing, because it
is buggy and rendering it _obviously_ broken is a service, not a
The only way that code isn't broken is if it's not supposed to be
portable beyond a very few implementations, in which case the problem
is that you're trying to use it outside those few implementations.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |