Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #171010
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? |
| Date | 2023-07-20 22:09 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86sf9hvojo.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <2569e26b-c60a-4873-a759-ee00a50e2bf9n@googlegroups.com> <u8n1cg$3cc3o$2@dont-email.me> |
Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> writes: > On 12/07/2023 02:32, das...@gmail.com wrote: > >> C99 indicates that a _Bool is an unsigned integer type. When a >> variable of a type other than _Bool is assigned to a _Bool, C99 >> specifies that the _Bool receives the value of 0 if the variable was >> 0, or 1 otherwise. >> >> But what does C99 say about a _Bool that is corrupted to a value >> other than 0 or 1 (perhaps through a pointer error in another part of >> the program)? Will this corrupted _Bool still function correctly? > > It's undefined behavior. Just like if you corrupt any value of any > other type. More accurately, it might be undefined behavior but doesn't have to be, depending on what choices have been made by the implementation. More details in my previous response to Keith Thompson's earlier posting.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Corrupted C99 _Bool? "das...@gmail.com" <dashley@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 17:32 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 18:51 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 19:13 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-12 02:47 -0400
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 21:25 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 01:58 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-21 14:22 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-12 09:31 +0200
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> - 2023-07-12 22:10 +0200
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 14:21 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 22:17 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-12 18:44 -0400
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? "das...@gmail.com" <dashley@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:41 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-13 01:17 +0100
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 17:28 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-13 11:27 +0200
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 15:18 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 09:07 +0200
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 00:53 -0700
Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 22:09 -0700
csiph-web