Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: bart again (UCX64)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 02:23:04 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <86v8crr4p3.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <557bf807-40c7-404b-9242-c26975faa42fn@googlegroups.com> <20230901104426.371@kylheku.com> <20230901114625.198@kylheku.com> <20230901135123.702@kylheku.com> <878r9p7b13.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87msy46y4n.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ef63087f855104b64afdd13e03f4862"; logging-data="909930"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nFHMRoMSk56LWRlqRDU9p8E42Kzat0qg="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G7zF+i5Lcfh+mjFwHE2b81+HUd4= sha1:SYO8X0YhYvjdV3FRVv48IhncSlQ=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:173732
Keith Thompson writes:
[...]
> I wouldn't mind if a future edition of the C standard added a
> requirement that the } of a non-void function must be unreachable
> (with an exception for main()). There are languages that have such
> a requirement, and in my limited experience it works pretty well.
>
> The problem is that such a requirement requires the compiler
> to perform control flow analysis that's not otherwise required.
> [...]
The problem is that in C such a determination cannot be made
precisely, for reasons that are both theoretical and practical.
Only heuristics are possible, but requirements in the C standard
are never stated in terms of heuristics (and rightly so).