From patchwork Sun Jul 7 20:03:57 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Gerald Pfeifer X-Patchwork-Id: 1957743 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@legolas.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pfeifer.com header.i=@pfeifer.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pair-202402271039 header.b=JTXUzwLR; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gcc.gnu.org (client-ip=8.43.85.97; helo=server2.sourceware.org; envelope-from=gcc-patches-bounces~incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org; receiver=patchwork.ozlabs.org) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by legolas.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4WHJ9x3KXfz1xrJ for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 06:04:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB13385C6CB for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:04:19 +0000 (GMT) X-Original-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 759EC385B503 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:03:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 759EC385B503 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pfeifer.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 759EC385B503 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.68.5.143 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1720382640; cv=none; b=NcuB+rg9bjrx6BqhQCdJ76LfKrIR39TQOqBkhSEfLnYfK5j1JxOSz1PWBDYTc2cbpWUgK5Ezq9+fMmltISjDRYYc0LnMTvBHy8PYZP/GtAdQt6bXfTCYkjNQHmO/jIIWt9wbLzYMfBxbHh+tWhutVJJG8JsLLNHETr/FK4+TS/A= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1720382640; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BfwBqV8WpIccYpmfIlF0fF6NU4a++SJcezkBp1Wq99k=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:MIME-Version:DKIM-Signature:Message-Id; b=JAhKlF+ORG343X+l3PjnzMRpx4eWrKMqXFaRRTBu1E08C9IjYeErY1VyLDl2RGuXCQZiuzl0RxueUzQdktzPDHpOmHdntmdIocozhLM0v2I6hr7yQOD9uETtTzkVMXBv1/92LVW+H/BQv7MggB7GEOnkO4MmIOmWTxQZtN6qtjU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F1E33EB3 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 16:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from daya.localdomain (188-23-62-249.adsl.highway.telekom.at [188.23.62.249]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C76DF33E9C for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 16:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:03:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [pushed] doc: Remove dubious example around bug reporting MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pfeifer.com; h=date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; s=pair-202402271039; bh=KA4jDHQDzRduu1E5wMOCks0IXvnc4bAf9CFx+r6uhk0=; b=JTXUzwLROhAp/D8FZwqkN5AEoumiK00DXm5TclTiQ+25j9GLqciHiJIdZuQDyv3tHsaD/ywqNG+T6uHLaG3pNjj9L7MN8ThT2i2MiSnvphfFqh8uWDYKKM9rwz0TbmU8GGObl4gq/6oivCAYBwk+yZYHk7dMAN6itQpNzByHu57fMS3+1QtXhDSacuQc2lrHg1qvE8hqElwgZp5XL/NL90VuH5kRd+qDPUHWvijiMKOO4GFWXnQZUubnyY9qNipxAE1ijO5vif1krCYjszMusM73awGlbbNZqx4KQBtXITIR8deUGs+YG06d9erXIU85vTBLzVBLWcZHIq6z5QuleA== X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 209.68.5.143 Message-Id: <20240707200359.45F1E33EB3@hamza.pair.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gcc-patches-bounces~incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org 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 --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