Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:43:47 -0600
Message-ID: <4ED80320.7A05@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:43:44 -0500
From: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: pfiland@mindspring.com
Organization: PF
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Type interchange
References: <jb68ju$icb$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4ED6AE65.8050901@verizon.net> <lnbortqjpg.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <4ED6C5F0.1080608@verizon.net> <0.041cc3761d33f47105cd.20111201030905GMT.87d3c9ouni.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jb7r0i$9ku$3@dont-email.me> <4ED7A703.4658@mindspring.com> <lnaa7cos2f.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.156.228.236
X-Trace: sv3-9SFqrFzNe03WwwAYrtSAK2F/iHb38khjYbjCCCboSNPpPGNJQePcCsjyOjB3iEAEHi1xzzldz+N2Mf8!kNEKay55A+CnhUlqfHP6rFo8fZvodjgpSpNAS511XxZtgWBOnT2mXzfJadffI/7fAaseIK5exeFQ!l33iysLRJEY=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2018
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c:14196

Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> > James Kuyper wrote:
> >> Some people prefer to describe this by saying that if there's any
> >> possible conforming implementation
> >> where the behavior is undefined, then
> >> the behavior is undefined, period, even on other implementations where
> >> the condition that makes it undefined isn't true - but I find that
> >> interpretation incoherent.
> >
> > That way,
> > whether or not a program contains undefined behavior
> > is a property of the C program,
> > and not a property of the
> > combination of the implementation and C program.
> 
> int n = 32767;
> n ++;

The behavior of that code isn't limited by the standard, is it?

-- 
pete