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: Constants and undefined behavior Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:11:46 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 19 Message-ID: <86ldcm82ql.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <10v7b32$2u85v$1@dont-email.me> <865x3yd21n.fsf@linuxsc.com> <10vs997$rp5$1@reader1.panix.com> <86tsrc8d0b.fsf@linuxsc.com> <1108pb9$omm$1@reader1.panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:11:47 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1125645"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RxbeKRM7+O3PzMZsXP6rP7ksbQHxex/I="; posting-host="aa64b03f28de85b92eb45592fb0321af" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:/2XNRzOM6FNVDVFyXA1OcRdVp38= sha1:ngVOVYamGNytoj81TAs8WZOCqEQ= sha256:GtxDEoLz1aDfH3PftKsJQjqVtNsBp3xQFWw2mnq4oVM= sha1:h0q9GkKtFNqCTrVH02nKW783z0k= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:399872 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: > In article <86tsrc8d0b.fsf@linuxsc.com>, > Tim Rentsch wrote: >[...] >> The C standard doesn't need to say that, for example, a >> function x() other than main(), whose name is never referenced, >> will never be called. If someone wants to establish that x() could >> be called, there needs to be a chain of reasoning going through the >> semantic descriptions given in the C standard, to show that a call >> to x() could occur. > > Actually, no, a reference to a function is not necessary. A > couple of years ago, a well-publicized issue in a C++ compiler a > couple of years ago was something along the lines of this: > [...] This is comp.lang.c. My comments were only about C, and not about C++. But of course you already knew that.