Path: csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Is C ready to become a safer language?
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:59:51 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <86eddl5bag.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <uq1jnk$1qebo$2@dont-email.me> <uq2vjp$21qev$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c20874413056af7bcbd7e84e1693869d"; logging-data="3034887"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UXxiFJmeFtjBVoGhM9iSiQe9p8NccN9Q="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jVSp1tI705mTS9l8ZxUbXNLzH04= sha1:31Su/JPw1pBiYm4jjVwYztDHAa8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:382253

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

[...]

> This is something which has long been of fascination to me:  how
> exactly do you get a C compiler to actually fail a program with a
> hard error when there is obviously something wrong, while not also
> failing on completely harmless matters.

I think the answer is obvious:  unless and until you find someone
who works on a C compiler and who has exactly the same sense that
you do of "when there is obviously something wrong" and of what
conditions fall under the heading of "completely harmless matters",
and also the same sense that you do of how a C compiler should
behave in those cases, you won't get exactly what you want unless
you do it yourself.