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


Groups > comp.lang.c > #171010

Re: Corrupted C99 _Bool?

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>

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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