Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Is C ready to become a safer language?
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:15:08 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <877cjbdfg3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <uq1jnk$1qebo$2@dont-email.me> <87jznfh7p6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <865xyw62av.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a3ea5551d1916ca86f611a52355c117b"; logging-data="106934"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IGRPt/lZo29IuXE+ajDh1"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qNCu9EfiV9scmrPLLCwCOc11FF0= sha1:4C3QhzlVVwA1fcEQehQbjGGMv/0=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:382293

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[snip discussion of a program that divides by zero]

> An implementation can refuse to translate the program, but not
> because undefined behavior occurs.  The undefined behavior here
> happens only when the program is executed, but just compiling the
> program doesn't do that.  No execution, no undefined behavior.
> Still the program may be rejected, because it is not strictly
> conforming (by virtue of having output depend on the undefined
> behavior if the program is ever run).

Just to be clear, would you say that a conforming hosted implementation
may reject this program:

#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
    printf("INT_MAX = %d\n", INT_MAX);
}

solely because it's not strictly conforming?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */