Comment by jotux 2 years ago https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#Typ... 3 comments jotux Reply ryao 2 years ago What is your point? I already said that GCC defines it even though the C standard does not. As per the GCC developers:> Type punning via unions is undefined behavior in both c and c++.https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118141#c13 jotux 2 years ago > One of the GCC developers told me explicitly that type punning through a union was UB in C, but defined by GCC when I askedI just was citing the source of this for reference. ryao 2 years ago I see. Carry on then. :)
ryao 2 years ago What is your point? I already said that GCC defines it even though the C standard does not. As per the GCC developers:> Type punning via unions is undefined behavior in both c and c++.https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118141#c13 jotux 2 years ago > One of the GCC developers told me explicitly that type punning through a union was UB in C, but defined by GCC when I askedI just was citing the source of this for reference. ryao 2 years ago I see. Carry on then. :)
jotux 2 years ago > One of the GCC developers told me explicitly that type punning through a union was UB in C, but defined by GCC when I askedI just was citing the source of this for reference. ryao 2 years ago I see. Carry on then. :)
What is your point? I already said that GCC defines it even though the C standard does not. As per the GCC developers:
> Type punning via unions is undefined behavior in both c and c++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118141#c13
> One of the GCC developers told me explicitly that type punning through a union was UB in C, but defined by GCC when I asked
I just was citing the source of this for reference.
I see. Carry on then. :)