On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:33 PM Linus Torvalds
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:23 AM Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hmm. The feedback on the clang bug suggests that GCC is the one in the
wrong here (although the argument is based on C11 and I haven't trawled
through the standards to see how this has evolved):

Oh well.

That writing is absolutely the _worst_ kind of weaselwording standards
language reading, trying to make excuses for bad behavior by basically
depending on "this language is unclear", and trying to say that the
buggy behavior is required by C11.

What a disappointment.

I don't really understand British humor either, but I assume that's
how the language lawyers throw shade on one anothers' standards.
Richard is both the WG21 spec editor (C++) and British, IIRC.
Apparently, there's a long conversion (behind closed doors; it's the
ISO way) going on in regards to the thread Richard has kicked off with
them (WG14; C).  Moreso on what should happen with the _Atomic
qualifier, assignments, and memcpy.  So it is still an important thing
to nail down the language spec.

Note there were also a lot of discussions lately on "where should the
volatile qualifier be allowed, or not."
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1152r0.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJW_DLaVXIY
(2018? ok, maybe not lately.  Lately for C)

I view this similarly as "where should the const qualifier be allowed, or not."
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel