Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Two different Results between C and C++ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 18:28:40 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 46 Message-ID: <87h7s7kabb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <8c6495f9-6139-464e-ac8f-4eac27a92776@googlegroups.com> <60d0f73c-8588-4673-a48d-e5c4cc726196@googlegroups.com> <87blm1wam0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86d05skg6z.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87tuz4gt4c.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86sgbx7sui.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20200904110249.583@kylheku.com> <86pn6w5lwr.fsf@linuxsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0a055fecdfea6848671fda7b1c426f37"; logging-data="27367"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+U/+IfKhe4iJyaOVYyb6+b" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:QShLFO7LDEDJRBcdj+tJmUd0kIo= sha1:5Hn33Y3JXRd+BiJ5RjXke5fBzFM= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:154749 James Kuyper writes: > On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote: > ... >> use Keith Thompson's phrase, and there is a tacit assumption >> that the programs are well-formed (meaning no syntax errors or >> constraint violations). > > I should have commented on this before. You have frequently applied the > term "well-formed" to C code, but as far as I can tell, Keith has never > used the phrase "well-formed" at all in this discussion. James, the way you snipped Tim's text could imply that he said I had used the phrase "well-formed". Restoring some context, Tim wrote: I'm not sure you understand the question being discussed. The set of programs under discussion is real-world C programs, to use Keith Thompson's phrase, and there is a tacit assumption that the programs are well-formed (meaning no syntax errors or constraint violations). The phrase of mine that Tim was referring to was "real-world C programs", not "well-formed". I just wanted to be clear on that (trivial) point. Getting back to the topic of this thread, Tim also wrote: Assuming that condition is met, the question is: Can such transformations be effected, with only a small effort in each case, for almost all real-world C programs? (I've omitted some relevant context. The phrase "such transformations" refers to transforming a valid C program to a program that is valid C and valid C++ and has equivalent semantics in both languages. I may have missed some nuance.) I note that Tim has not, unless I've missed something, attempted to answer that question himself. In a similarly odd omission, I am not asking him to do so. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */