🚀 go-pugleaf

It has been brought to my attention that 5 of the 20 bugs I reported for
the recent 2.3.3 release of GCC were in fact non-bugs.

Specifically, #1, #16, and #17 all involve undefined behavior, and thus,
diagnostics are not strictly required in those cases.

Separately, items #14 and #15 were simply bogus.  I claimed that GCC was
failing to issue errors for erroneous code when in fact the code given
in the examples for those items was perfectly legitimate ANSI C code.

I sincerly apologize for any confusion these mistakes might have caused.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the other 15 items do in fact repre-
sent deviations (on GCC's part) from the letter of the ANSI C standard.

(This is both one of the benefits and one of the hazards of posting to
the comp.std.c newsgroup... i.e. you find out almost immediately if
anything you have said is wrong! :-)


// Ron ("Loose Cannon") Guilmette    uucp: ...uunet!lupine!segfault!rfg
//
//      "On the one hand I knew that programs could have a compelling
//       and deep logical beauty, on the other hand I was forced to
//       admit that most programs are presented in a way fit for
//       mechanical execution, but even if of any beauty at all,
//       totally unfit for human appreciation."
//                                              -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
-- 

// Ron ("Loose Cannon") Guilmette    uucp: ...uunet!lupine!segfault!rfg
//
//      "On the one hand I knew that programs could have a compelling
//       and deep logical beauty, on the other hand I was forced to
//       admit that most programs are presented in a way fit for
//       mechanical execution, but even if of any beauty at all,
//       totally unfit for human appreciation."
//                                              -- Edsger W. Dijkstra