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: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:45:33 -0600
Message-ID: <4ED96320.79E7@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:45:36 -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> <4ED80320.7A05@mindspring.com> <lnwrafoq1p.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <4ED81BD0.4855@mindspring.com> <lnsjl3okkf.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <4ED8D43C.20B0@mindspring.com> <lnfwh2oe50.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 52
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.154.218.218
X-Trace: sv3-wSkbThObnT6ZXC3fQ43/mf2S0mrlp7acF1up/jZFIxM4wnfGiKDyDaL5m4rKW1MLMqCUTGByeLruOZe!57Pp2Tsjb7R6ROd6QLN+ZqeOk8R61hnsHqPWLlfaaglWqnlK7NzPci9k0Sq1mo6lsW2YTFGT7acA!OliR2bNuEFw=
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: 2878
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c:14249

Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> > Keith Thompson wrote:
> [...]
> >> Let's make it a complete program:
> >>
> >> int main(void) {
> >>     int n = 32767;
> >>     n ++;
> >>     return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> I say that this program (specifically its execution) has undefined
> >> behavior under an implementation with INT_MAX == 32767, and has
> >> well defined behavior under an implementation with INT_MAX > 32767.
> >>
> >> What do you say?  Are you claiming that the program's behavior is
> >> undefined regardless of the implementation?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > That's an example of a non portable construct
> > for which the standard imposes no requirements.
> 
> And that's where I think you're wrong.  It's a non-portable construct
> for which the standard *does* impose a requirement.  The requirement is
> that if INT_MAX > 32767, then the value of n after "n ++;" shall be
> 32768.
> 
> Given a revised program:
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> int main(void) {
>     int n = 32767;
>     n ++;
>     printf("n = %d\n", n);
>     return 0;
> }
> 
> do you believe that, on an implementation with INT_MAX > 32767,
> and in the absence of I/O errors, that program can do anything
> other than printing "n = 32768"?

No.

> A conditional requirement is still a requirement.

I'm starting to see things your way.

-- 
pete