The code in question is related to setjmp/longjmp. As a general rule of thumb, this is something where the gut reaction to any bug report is going to be "you're doing it wrong"--the C standard actually provides a lot less guarantees here than most people believe it does. I haven't read the verbiage and the bug report in question in enough detail to ascertain if this is true or not, but it isn't in the least bit surprising that most people see setjmp/longjmp and immediately table the issue as being low-priority.