Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From: alexfrunews@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux?
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 9
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <16-09-008@comp.compilers>
References: <16-09-001@comp.compilers> <16-09-002@comp.compilers>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="67691"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: C
Posted-Date: 05 Sep 2016 22:51:09 EDT
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
X-Received-Bytes: 1284
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3938853720
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1747

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:56:56 PM UTC-7, jacobnavia wrote:
> Why should they care? If you write duplicate switch cases its not their
> fault, its yours.

It is a constraint violation, and a trivial one, that the compiler
must identify and report instead of silently producing code that is
broken or appears to work by chance.

Alex