Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #382313

Re: Is C ready to become a safer language?

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 Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:12:58 -0800
Organization None to speak of
Lines 69
Message-ID <87a5o7ber9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink)
References <uq1jnk$1qebo$2@dont-email.me> <87jznfh7p6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <865xyw62av.fsf@linuxsc.com> <877cjbdfg3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86frxz4g9l.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain
Injection-Info dont-email.me; posting-host="a3ea5551d1916ca86f611a52355c117b"; logging-data="954126"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18OQaSKYnTjiI1VWiKUOt+R"
User-Agent Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock sha1:8kdETh+9j8u8ahJHZ1JUINbmNAU= sha1:YFxj+GIUlczwRFUT+ZOTE/5vqnA=
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.c:382313

Show key headers only | View raw

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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?
>
> My understanding of the C standard is that a hosted implementation
> may choose not to accept the above program and still be conforming,
> because this program is not strictly conforming.  (Please assume
> subsequent remarks always refer to implementations that are both
> hosted and conforming.)
>
> Also, assuming we have ruled out cases involving #error, a conforming
> implementation may choose not to accept a given program if and only if
> the program is not strictly conforming.  Being strictly conforming is
> the only criterion that matters (again assuming there is no #error) in
> deciding whether an implementation may choose not to accept the
> program in question.
>
> I'm guessing that what you mean by "may reject" is the same as what
> I mean by "may choose not to accept".  I'd like to know if you think
> that's right, or if you think there is some difference between the
> two.  (My intention is that the two phrases have the same meaning.)
>
> Does the above adequately address the question you want answered?

I'm not sure.  As I recall, I gave up on trying to understand what you
think "accept" means.

N1570 5.1.2.3p6:

    A program that is correct in all other aspects, operating on correct
    data, containing unspecified behavior shall be a correct program and
    act in accordance with 5.1.2.3.

Does that not apply to the program above?  How can it do so if it's
rejected (or not "accepted")?

The same paragraph says that "A *conforming hosted implementation* shall
accept any strictly conforming program".  Are you reading that as
implying that *only* strictly conforming programs must be accepted?

As a practical matter, an implementation that accepts *only* strictly
conforming programs would be very nearly useless.  I don't see anything
in the standard that says a program can be rejected purely because it's
not strictly conforming, and I don't believe that was the intent.

-- 
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 */

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 01:01 -0300
  Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 04:40 +0000
    Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 05:00 +0000
    Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 09:20 -0300
      Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 17:02 +0000
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 14:17 -0300
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 14:19 -0300
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 09:57 -0800
      Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 09:45 -0800
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 14:56 -0300
  Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 04:58 +0000
    Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 21:33 -0800
  Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 20:59 -0800
    Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 09:17 +0100
      Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 09:48 -0300
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 14:42 +0000
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 16:25 +0100
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 13:15 -0300
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 21:42 +0100
      Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 08:04 -0800
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 16:14 +0000
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 08:32 -0800
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 08:19 +0100
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 07:46 +0000
              Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 09:33 +0100
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 10:03 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 11:17 +0100
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 10:24 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 11:24 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 13:28 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 14:04 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 15:03 +0100
                ustent on that. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 16:01 +0000
                Re: ustent on that. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 18:00 +0100
                Re: ustent on that. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-10 01:20 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 12:45 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 13:01 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 15:08 +0100
              Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 08:48 -0800
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 08:14 +0100
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 08:28 -0800
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 20:15 +0100
    Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-10 02:28 -0800
      Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-10 16:15 -0800
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-10 23:22 -0800
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-11 00:12 -0800
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-11 23:48 -0800
              Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-18 15:28 -0800
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-03-23 10:35 -0700
  Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-08 15:37 +0000
    Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 13:25 -0300
  Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 16:30 +0000
    Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-09 17:59 -0800
      Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-10 20:22 +0000
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-10 21:30 +0000
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 21:49 +0000
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-10 20:44 -0300
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-11 13:06 +0100
              Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-11 15:43 -0300
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-11 13:33 -0800
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-12 11:32 +0100
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-11 00:02 +0000
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-10 17:39 -0800
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-11 02:46 +0000
              Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-11 12:24 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-11 15:06 +0100
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-11 18:32 +0000
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-11 13:15 +0100
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-10 16:31 -0800
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-11 15:57 -0300
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-11 13:47 -0800
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-11 00:40 +0000
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-11 01:06 +0000
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-10 17:51 -0800
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-11 13:27 +0100
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-10 19:54 -0800
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-13 06:22 +0000
          Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-11 11:01 +0000
            Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-11 11:31 +0000
              Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-11 12:38 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-11 13:23 +0000
                Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-11 14:17 +0000
        Re: Is C ready to become a safer language? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-10 22:21 -0800

csiph-web