[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] Drop support for gcc-2.95

[Uoti Urpala]

On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 20:39 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:

<Some flames skipped>

> > > > I was mainly thinking of C99 features like compound literals (which 2.95
> > > > supports partially?)
> > > 
> > > These are fully supported by gcc 2.95. I use them all the time. Named
> > 
> > No they aren't. I tested it and my first testcase was miscompiled by
> > gcc-2.95. Seems it considered the initialized value to be const when it
> > wasn't.
> 
> Could you explain? Are you sure your example is valid C?

This is enough to reproduce the problem:

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    int *p = (int []){0, 1};
    *p = 2;
    return 0;
}

This is valid C. gcc-2.95 miscompiles it, resulting in a segfault on my
machine.

> I did. The fact that the ISO C committee can't figure out the
> consequences of their own specification is irrelevant.

I'm sure you understand the standard much better than those morons who
wrote it.