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: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 14:19:34 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 40 Message-ID: <86jytu3fh5.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <3a3462bdd72c4ed9d392a78b7d369a7b5ccc3b04.camel@gmail.com> <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> <865x5h4phd.fsf@linuxsc.com> <10sdha6$35moe$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 21:19:35 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="842c0705c388246dee2d3602366a27fb"; logging-data="1206464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DOOq3W/biTJwbuDCVUOwa+TrpdOzVB/8=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CFTu97g5C3KVd7C/rBlEYcU4chY= sha1:0QtA16bJ7p6IF2McdmB8WRWRU/Q= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:397946 Bart writes: > On 23/04/2026 17:21, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> 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. > > So the buck passes to the language being lax. It seems that when you say "being lax" what you mean is a behavior that is either something you don't expect or something you don't like. Probably most people have a different understanding about that.