3 ms·
To be fair, off the top of my head, Clang and GCC: - lex differently; - have different baselines for what code even compiles: e.g. in GCC an out-of-range hex
by yakubin 5y ago
To be fair, off the top of my head, Clang and GCC:
- lex differently;
- have different baselines for what code even compiles: e.g. in GCC an out-of-range hex escape sequence in an integer character constant generates a warning; in Clang it generates an error.
Additionally, for a long time on Windows MinGW's std::random_device()() always returned 0, being a real-world depiction of <https://xkcd.com/221/ https://xkcd.com/221/>. So you compiled for Linux with GCC and everything was fine; then you compiled for Windows with MinGW and silently something broke, which resulted in a suspiciously big number of hash collisions.
Then again, those are illustrations of a poorly written standard, not of the idea of a standard, which has multiple implementations, being bad.