diff mbox series

[pushed] doc: Remove dubious example around bug reporting

Message ID 20240707200359.45F1E33EB3@hamza.pair.com
State New
Headers show
Series [pushed] doc: Remove dubious example around bug reporting | expand

Commit Message

Gerald Pfeifer July 7, 2024, 8:03 p.m. UTC 
Really, that's probably something from some old compilers in the 90s; no 
point in confusing people with such history as interesting as it may be.

Gerald


gcc:
	* doc/bugreport.texi (Bug Criteria): Remove dubious example.
---
 gcc/doc/bugreport.texi | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/doc/bugreport.texi b/gcc/doc/bugreport.texi
index b7cfb5dd6ae..7a603241f77 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/bugreport.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/bugreport.texi
@@ -50,11 +50,6 @@  However, you must double-check to make sure, because you may have a
 program whose behavior is undefined, which happened by chance to give
 the desired results with another C or C++ compiler.
 
-For example, in many nonoptimizing compilers, you can write @samp{x;}
-at the end of a function instead of @samp{return x;}, with the same
-results.  But the value of the function is undefined if @code{return}
-is omitted; it is not a bug when GCC produces different results.
-
 Problems often result from expressions with two increment operators,
 as in @code{f (*p++, *p++)}.  Your previous compiler might have
 interpreted that expression the way you intended; GCC might