Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: A thought of C Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 09:21:18 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 29 Message-ID: <865x5h4phd.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <3a3462bdd72c4ed9d392a78b7d369a7b5ccc3b04.camel@gmail.com> <10s01e1$384ct$1@dont-email.me> <10s06q2$39rhn$1@dont-email.me> <10s2a2u$3t0f5$1@dont-email.me> <10s2fhc$3ug5h$1@dont-email.me> <10s2h5f$3uctl$1@dont-email.me> <10s2oq0$19am$1@dont-email.me> <10s2tfe$2lvm$1@dont-email.me> <10s34f6$542f$1@dont-email.me> <10s3akj$7ajg$1@dont-email.me> <10s3otn$bk6v$1@dont-email.me> <10s4gtb$grfo$1@dont-email.me> <10s53k2$mlh7$1@dont-email.me> <10s9c7a$2b5i9$4@dont-email.me> <10sal4e$2967c$1@dont-email.me> <10sbera$2iai7$2@kst.eternal-september.org> <10sbl72$2knde$1@dont-email.me> <10sbue0$2mtc2$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <10scqh1$2u305$1@dont-email.me> <10sdb5h$2mkm2$2@dont-email.me> <10sddv7$34el0$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 16:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="096db26766e75ae3d0da9ffd77dfc80c"; logging-data="3309331"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+R/S9veANsII1WFTQ95RgCD7szjRLEIF0=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zcY4JQq+iVbKcyTb12HqVcfuKqU= sha1:k5ZeGNuS8NHSwk1sTYld7zLhPMo= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:397868 Bart writes: > On 23/04/2026 15:42, James Kuyper wrote: > >> On 23/04/2026 11:58, Bart wrote: >> ... >> >>> Are you suggesting that because something is tagged as UB, that it >>> literally gives a compiler a licence to do anything? >> >> "behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct or >> of erroneous data, for which this document imposes no requirements." >> (3.5.3p1). >> >> What exactly do you think "no requirements" means? What could it >> possibly mean other than "license to do anything"? > > So the effect is that the compiler can be 'lax' in being able to do > what it likes, including not reporting it and not refusing to fail te > program. > > KT said: "the compiler is not being lax". I was responding to that. > > If it is not being lax, then I'd like to what 'being lax' would look > like for this compiler. What "being lax" means, for any compiler and not just this one, is not being faithful to what the C standard requires of a conforming implementation.