Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Bug report rejected as conformant
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-13 20:14:55

On 1/13/2018 1:55 PM, Marc Glisse via Boost wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> I recently reported a preprocessor bug in Oracle C++ 12.6 on their
>> online forum when compiling a C program example. I even cited the C11
>> standard in showing that Oracle C++ 12.6's actions were
>> non-conformant. The answer I was given, from an Oracle C++ developer
>> who said he was a member of the C++ standard committee, is that since
>> Oracle C++ 12.6 gives a warning message rather than a compiler error
>> the compiler was compliant with the C standard, since the standard
>> only requires a diagnostic message to be considered standard compliant
>> when it does not implement the compiler according to the standard, and
>> that a warning was a diagnostic message. Furthermore since there was a
>> way to force the particular warning to be considered an error, Oracle
>> was not going to change their compiler. At that point I "lost it" so
>> to speak.
>> I cannot conceive that any C/C++ standard would specify that giving a
>> warning rather than an error, when not complying with the C/C++
>> standard, would then make the compiler compliant. Comments ?
> Uh, that's what all compilers do all the time when they implement
> extensions to the standard. With gcc, you even need to specify
> -Wpedantic to get those required diagnostics. I am really surprised that
> this is the first compiler for which you notice this...

So a compiler is allowed to implement an extension to the standard which
is non-compliant with the standard, and then claim compliance to the
standard by outputting a warning message instead ? In that case what
hope is there for the programmer to write C/C++ standard compliant code
using such a compiler, since the compiler is "inventing" a standard
which does not exist ?

Note that the error I reported was not when using any
-std=some_compilers_extension mode ( as in gcc's -std=gnu++nn mode as
opposed to -std=c++nn mode) but with -std=c11 mode, which is explained
as being an implementation of the c11 standard. In other words if I were
using an Oracle c11 mode, as in a hypothetical -std=oracle++c11, I would
not have complained about their extension to the standard or their
cavalier treatment of a bug as not being a bug because they produced a
warning. But that was not the case and the mode being used was the
-std=c11 mode, which evidently means to Oracle C++ whatever they feel
like defining as the c11 standard even if it does not follow the actual
c11 standard.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at