Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 05:32:13PM +0100, Christian Biere wrote:
> > Even though the manpage says this code might not work as "expected" (whatever
> > one would expect here), I can't convince it to warn about this.
 
> As it is explicitly allowed. Read: this is legal from the point of C99.

Then GCC may not C99 compliant as the manpage claims "it might not work as
expected". This is probably a pretty horrible example because only the author
can know what is supposed to be "expected" here.

My point though is that you convince the compiler to shut up and not warn about
constructs which are not portable or have undefined behavior. So the absence of
compiler warnings does not mean that the code is correct at all.

-- 
Christian