zhaoxinjian wrote:
I wrote that letter in order to discuss this problem.And in CLN-1.2.0,I find many "bugs" like this.
As far as I can see, you still haven't explained what the "problem" actually is. Does it fail to compile or link? What's the diagnostic message, then? Could you, please, elaborate?
Alexei Sheplyakov wrote:
It *is* wrong, but [sometimes] it happens to work.
Ah, I understood the question as being skeptical about the diverging implementations. And in this respect, it is *not* wrong. Looking at it from the standard compliance perspective, though, I agree it's illegal.
I think so. In my opinion,CLN will be modified with the development of compiler GCC.So I suggest that CLN be updated in standard C++. And this will also improve the possibility of migration from GCC to other Compilers.
The thing is, that CLN will not be modified unless somebody a) writes a patch and/or b) explains how to find the bugs in a systematical way. See, it happens to work just fine on all machines I tried and I'm not at all inclined to read source code and check it for standard compliance line-by-line. Please, explain what's the matter, or, better, send us a patch. Best wishes -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>