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

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:26:41AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> 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.

It is NOT valid C. The compound literal exists only for the current
statement. After that it ceases to exist and any pointer to it is
invalid.

> > 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.

They're not morons, but writing something does not necessarily mean
you've thought out every single implication of it. In fact that's
impossible. The only reason I was slightly mocking them is that they
intentionally said that the behavior is undefined (rather than saying
nothing) even though other parts of the spec clearly define it.

Rich