At Sun, 24 May 2026 11:38:59 -0400, Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost> wrote: Subject: Re: netbsd-11 gcc bug > > > On May 24, 2026, at 8:33 AM, Mouse <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> > > wrote: > > Perhaps the gcc people are able-and-willing to do that. But, > > if not, I still maintain that it is thereby unsuitable for the > > use case of building NetBSD. > > I mean, I also find compiler people annoying in this regard, but > this doesn t render the compiler unsuitable . Just fix the code > and be done with it. I do wish the compiler at least emitted a > warning, however, when a NULL-check is elided for this reason. Indeed, especially for the warnings! (Does UBSAN help?) The ultimate fix may be to convince the C standards committee to eliminate all cases of "undefined behaviour" from the standard. Converting most cases to "implementation defined behaviour" should be one option. Some others may require whacking some sense into some vendors of esoteric systems. There are apparently some attempts afoot to do this (according to Robert C. Seacord, the current convenor of the committee if I understand correctly). -- Greg A. Woods <gwoods%acm.org@localhost> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods%robohack.ca@localhost> Planix, Inc. <woods%planix.com@localhost> Avoncote Farms <woods%avoncote.ca@localhost>
Attachment:
pgptky8dNy_9T.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature