Re: Future of C

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Future of C
Date	2018-04-03 09:12 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<lnh8oss20a.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <kfnh8oxlkfn.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnin9dtsuo.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <d96f52ff-e2dd-40b8-b260-31359f5417e5@googlegroups.com> <lntvstsi5q.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <5dfb4b39-5941-4f2a-89cc-5e68ba845e4a@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 5:11:12 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> 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  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
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"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Future of C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-03-26 21:02 -0700
  Re: Future of C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-27 09:39 +0200
    Re: Future of C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-03-27 07:37 -0700
      Re: Future of C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 11:19 -0700
  Re: Future of C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 00:42 -0700
  Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-03-27 08:52 -0700
    Re: Future of C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-03-30 07:14 -0700
      Re: Future of C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-30 17:23 +0200
        Re: Future of C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 02:41 -0700
      Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-03-30 09:45 -0700
        Re: Future of C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 01:42 -0700
          Re: Future of C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 04:53 -0700
          Re: Future of C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-02 06:02 -0700
            Re: Future of C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 06:57 -0700
            Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-02 09:12 -0700
              Re: Future of C "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-02 13:30 -0700
                Re: Future of C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 00:59 -0700
              Re: Future of C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-02 22:33 +0200
                Re: Future of C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 01:40 -0700
                Re: Future of C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-03 12:47 +0200
              Re: Future of C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-03 09:51 -0700
                Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-03 11:23 -0700
                Re: Future of C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-03 11:37 -0700
                Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-03 11:46 -0700
                Re: Future of C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-03 12:26 -0700
                Re: Future of C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 01:17 -0700
                Re: Future of C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-04 09:45 -0700
          Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-02 09:10 -0700
            Re: Future of C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 09:33 -0700
            Re: Future of C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 01:35 -0700
              Re: Future of C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-03 12:50 +0200
                Re: Future of C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 04:01 -0700
              Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-03 09:12 -0700
        Re: Future of C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-04 16:17 -0700
          Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-04 17:26 -0700
            Re: Future of C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-09 07:30 -0700
              Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-09 08:52 -0700
                Re: Future of C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-11 08:21 -0700
                Re: Future of C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-11 09:28 -0700
          Re: Future of C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-05 11:00 -0700

csiph-web