Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: this girl calls c ugly
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:54:08 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <86pl2087z3.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <10v7b32$2u85v$1@dont-email.me> <86bjdpayv0.fsf@linuxsc.com> <10vv49k$1aoa2$4@kst.eternal-september.org> <86y0gp82pd.fsf@linuxsc.com> <1106udm$jmf$1@reader1.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:54:09 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="4009564"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XNrisGP7jJIWowsl4KQklOoosWRpzZb4="; posting-host="279f363b91f2ad5cb0cf462c32d4b36d"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1PvXzkrPhLXS1Shq+FWm+hA2m+s= sha1:U+I5mZhG4Xtj/THaSYoAeBuOYJ0= sha256:kqmBvmty+2LsX5PqSUaTs1Ww3RM85JAuFOiedl5LSVk= sha1:dJM9hni9O8vuTaZ5wSnAmczmuZs=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:399807

cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:

> In article <86y0gp82pd.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
> Tim Rentsch  <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

[...]

>> I'd like to know why you ignored my explanation, based directly on
>> text from the C standard, about why an implementation is allowed to
>> process the code in question, without giving a diagnostic, and
>> still be conforming.  An explanation that Dan Cross agreed with,
>> even if he may not like the consequences.
>
> I am mystified as to why you are bringing my name into this, and
> why you think "I may not like the consequences", or even what
> that means.  In any event, you are evidently laboring under some
> assumption about what I think about this matter that is probably
> incorrect.

In a response to another posting of mine, you wrote this:

> But as it happens, I think I can see how your interpretation may
> be valid:  if, as a result of UB, the expression evaluates to "0"
> (or 12 or something simiilar) that _is_ representable, then
> there _is no constraint violation_ and so no diagnostic is
> required.
> 
> I do not believe that that is the intent.  But it _is_
> conformant with the text of the standard.

I based my statement that begins "An explanation that Dan Cross
agreed with, ..." on those two paragraphs.