🚀 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.


// 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