Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!fnf@mcdsun.uucp From: fnf@mcdsun.uucp (Fred Fish) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: possible structure initialization bug Message-ID: <8909@brl-adm.ARPA> Date: Thu, 20-Aug-87 15:43:46 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-adm.8909 Posted: Thu Aug 20 15:43:46 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 11:24:04 EDT Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA Lines: 30 In article <6277@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >In article <352@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >[..deleted..] >What was probably intended should be written: >[..deleted..] >completely unbracketed lists, with consistent but not necessarily >sane rules for the intermediate cases -- which we hope nobody will >ever be so foolish as to use. I should probably have noted in the original posting that the reason this question came up, what that there was similar code (with lots more dimensions and lots more brackets) in a commercial compiler test suite that I am entangled in at the moment. Naturally, I cannot post the relevant test code, but I believe my distillation of the code that triggered a possible bug is correct. It is obvious that the compiler test suite is trying to test the bounds of the initialization rules, as there are lots and lots of different permutations of partially bracketed lists. By the way, this same test suite has turned up over a dozen bugs in the native Sun 3.2 C compiler and the Motorola 68020 C compiler and I've only just recently finished running the first of many parts of the suite. Most of the problems appear to be generic pcc type bugs. -Fred -- = Drug tests; just say *NO*! = Fred Fish Motorola Computer Division, 3013 S 52nd St, Tempe, Az 85282 USA = seismo!noao!mcdsun!fnf (602) 438-3614