Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!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: you think rust may outthrone c?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:03:00 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <87o7jyp3nf.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <ebb9e01a-6369-4629-8b38-11d28df63693n@googlegroups.com> <u98odb$25mj8$1@dont-email.me> <87jzuvsg7q.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <u9cfmj$2trto$1@dont-email.me> <87h6pyqgnp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <u9cld3$2uof8$1@dont-email.me> <878rbaqch6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <u9dm6t$370v3$1@dont-email.me> <u9dv2c$38ir2$1@dont-email.me> <u9e7bp$3a1ug$1@dont-email.me> <u9h055$3s62g$7@dont-email.me> <87351foebi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u9jgmu$9i98$1@dont-email.me> <87o7k2l4ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u9m5rp$nbif$1@dont-email.me> <87o7k0kbq5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u9o1ie$12n8g$1@dont-email.me> <87cz0gj8wl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u9otu5$15mpl$1@dont-email.me> <87bkfyi5f0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u9sf9o$1kual$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8957b03f6dc45951cee385c25f0e511"; logging-data="1735577"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ORLOkH7JkKDeJ1BbAOQg1"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UPrvldUju4gW0mc0FNEsDG545Bk= sha1:uj88bD1vyqGapeY0JSibmA4sLU8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:171320

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> To get back to my point, I will reassert that I think that:
>
>     *(int*)1234567
>
> is what I would call 'undefined behaviour', since I couldn't tell you
> what would happen if executed.
>
> But evaluating:
>
>     INT_MAX+1
>
> is NOT what I would call 'undefined behaviour'; whatever unexpected
> things you might observe in such programs, is the deliberate intention 
> of the compiler. Since actual hardware UB on signed overflow is rare.

Would you consider using a term other than "undefined behavio[u]r" for
whatever it is you're referring to?

If not, is it because you're being intentionally difficult?

(These are both serious questions.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */