Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Future of C Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:12:05 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <0231327b-9e28-46e4-9178-46c881a8dd91@googlegroups.com> <20180311161525.ac591de531b83d6b14b2cd43@gmail.com> <90236828-48d7-4ee5-9b86-4cedd0e29b5f@googlegroups.com> <3r7jne-t3h.ln1@gangtai.grep.be> <8e201938-ada4-42d9-8ae6-13b1047306e2@googlegroups.com> <69a08d82-b76a-4334-be63-20dc22f869bf@googlegroups.com> <0dcf08ee-d589-444c-8122-5310d95e80df@googlegroups.com> <5dfb4b39-5941-4f2a-89cc-5e68ba845e4a@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="44da38e7affa7c709ac80b82b9bf6f42"; logging-data="12041"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Kif0RC25B84EIAALC6LWN" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:QKDMxHzUJupYg8i5hYDFdZ5wrWE= sha1:TqSguIE3H+Vm8PadyNSXqea8Oo0= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:128662 Malcolm McLean writes: > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 5:11:12 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean writes: >> [...] >> > Something can be undefined in C standard terms if the C standard >> > says that it is undefined. It is undefined in normal parlance if the >> > C standard does not provide a definition for the behaviour. Stack >> > overflow is obviously in the latter category. >> >> Are you ignoring N1570 4p2? >> >> If a "shall" or "shall not" requirement that appears outside >> of a constraint or runtime-constraint is violated, the behavior >> is undefined. Undefined behavior is otherwise indicated in this >> International Standard by the words "undefined behavior" or by >> the omission of any explicit definition of behavior. There is >> no difference in emphasis among these three; they all describe >> "behavior that is undefined". >> >> I already cited it in this thread. >> > Of course that's nonsense. There's a difference between explicitly > stating that behaviour is "undefined" and failing to provide a > definition. Since C is a closed grammar ideally there shouldn't be > any holes where situations unforeseen by the standard crop up, but > it's possible that something has been missed (not stack overflow, > which is a known issue). You are wrong. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"