Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c |
| Subject | Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro |
| Date | 2021-11-10 15:01 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <87fss3wr6t.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <86wnmoov7c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20211009201151$a68b@zira.vinc17.org> <861r3pbbwh.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20211110124948$eea4@zira.vinc17.org> <86wnlg9ey7.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> writes:
>> In article <861r3pbbwh.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>> Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> writes:
>>>> In article <86wnmoov7c.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>>>> What occurs is defined behavior and (for implementations that do
>>>>> not have the needed value for infinity) violates a constraint.
>>>>> A diagnostic must be produced.
>>>>
>>>> If this is defined behavior, where is the result of an overflow
>>>> defined by the standard? (I can see only 7.12.1p5, but this is
>>>> for math functions; here, this is a constant that overflows.)
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if you have resolved your original uncertainty
>>> about the behavior of INFINITY in an implementation that does
>>> not support infinities?
>>
>> I suspect that by saying "overflow", the standard actually meant that
>> the result is not in the range of representable values. This is the
>> only way the footnote "In this case, using INFINITY will violate the
>> constraint in 6.4.4 and thus require a diagnostic." can make sense
>> (the constraint in 6.4.4 is about the range, not overflow). But IMHO,
>> the failing constraint makes the behavior undefined, actually makes
>> the program erroneous.
>
> Suppose we have an implementation that does not support
> infinities, a range of double and long double up to about ten to
> the 99999, and ask it to translate the following .c file
>
> double way_too_big = 1.e1000000;
>
> This constant value violates the constraint in 6.4.4. Do you
> think this .c file (and any program it is part of) has undefined
> behavior? If so, do you think any constraint violation implies
> undefined behavior, or just some of them?
(Jumping in though the question was addressed to someone else.)
I think it's a tricky question. I think the language would be cleaner
if the standard explicitly stated that violating a constraint always
results in undefined behavior -- or if it explicitly stated that it
doesn't. (The former is my personal preference.)
Clearly a compiler is allowed (but not required) to reject a program
that violates a constraint. If it does so, there is no behavior. So
the question is whether the behavior is undefined if the implementation
chooses not to reject it. (I personally don't see a whole lot of value
in defining the behavior of code that could have been rejected outright.
I'm also not a big fan of the fact that required diagnostics don't have
to be fatal, but that's not likely to change.)
The semantics of floating constants specify that the value is "either
the nearest representable value, or the larger or smaller representable
value immediately adjacent to the nearest representable value, chosen in
an implementation-defined manner". Given that infinities are not
supported, that would be DBL_MAX or its predecessor. Based on that, I'd
say that:
- A diagnostic is required.
- A compiler may reject the program.
- If the compiler doesn't reject the program, the value of way_too_big
must be DBL_MAX or its predecessor. (Making it the predecessor of
DBL_MAX would be weird but conforming.)
*Except* that the definition of "constraint" is "restriction, either
syntactic or semantic, by which the exposition of language elements is
to be interpreted". I find that rather vague, but it could be
interpreted to mean that if a constraint is violated, there is no valid
interpretation of language elements.
Rejecting 1.e1000000 with a fatal diagnostic is clearly conforming.
Issuing a non-fatal warning for 1.e1000000 and setting way_too_big to
DBL_MAX is conforming (even if the behavior is/were undefined, that's
perfectly valid).
An implementation that issues a non-fatal warning for 1.e1000000 and
sets way_too_big to 42.0 is arguably non-conforming, but if its
implementers argue that the behavior is undefined because of their
interpretation of the standard's definition of "constraint", I'd have a
hard time claiming they're wrong.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-09-30 01:47 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 19:05 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-09-30 11:24 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 08:38 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-01 09:05 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 12:20 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-04 09:26 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-04 10:34 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2021-10-05 13:53 +0100
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-06 00:12 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-07 07:05 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 07:51 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 11:41 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-09 19:49 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 14:28 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com.invalid> - 2021-10-01 22:55 +0200
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 14:26 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-08 08:30 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 11:40 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-17 21:00 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-09 20:05 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-11 12:40 -0400
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-17 21:02 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-08 00:02 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-09 20:17 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-11 12:40 -0400
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-11 12:39 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-11 21:04 -0400
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-11 18:33 -0700
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-03 12:03 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-01-03 16:45 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 14:36 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-01-04 02:10 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-17 10:09 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-03 11:55 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-26 10:01 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 12:53 -0400
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-28 09:38 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-28 11:23 -0400
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-10-29 12:12 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-30 02:08 -0400
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-08 02:44 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-08 01:46 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-08 10:56 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-08 13:50 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-09 02:48 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-09 00:50 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-09 10:12 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-09 12:51 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-10 12:48 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-10 12:03 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-12 23:17 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-12 21:03 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-15 09:18 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-15 14:25 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-16 01:17 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-16 10:29 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-12-08 10:09 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Derek Jones <derek@NOSPAM-knosof.co.uk> - 2021-11-16 11:32 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-16 10:35 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-11-09 07:13 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-10 13:16 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-11-10 08:02 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 15:01 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-13 00:30 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-12-02 22:14 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-03 12:48 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-12 23:55 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-11-15 07:59 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-15 23:39 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-15 20:00 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-16 01:28 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-11-16 01:57 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-16 09:52 -0500
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-16 19:00 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> - 2021-12-08 10:56 +0000
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-03 12:56 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-01-03 22:45 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-17 05:35 -0800
Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-30 03:20 +0100
csiph-web