Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:50:35 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <ln8twob85w.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <lnr3apmfbl.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <lna8hcmgux.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <7d995799-5f23-4784-a62e-ea423de00650@googlegroups.com> <lnk2ggkszv.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <36f1e05e-609e-4e0e-8819-86feee1f4d8c@googlegroups.com> <ln7fcflv9v.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <c2cbf93e-1479-4cde-98b2-3027299c2c8e@googlegroups.com> <57933a73.4812875@news.xs4all.nl> <f21ce6b1-3be2-422e-8511-c84d5b13e757@googlegroups.com> <5793c8e5.2941812@news.xs4all.nl> <b80e8423-7bb0-432b-894a-8cd6bb038ea6@googlegroups.com> <nn0p0u$jgm$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <87oa5n97rz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nn2lht$lsh$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <87wpkar54r.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nn3odc$6ca$5@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <87d1m1r99c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nn5f61$310$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <871t2hqn06.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nn834o$elo$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <db671584-10a6-4bb9-9f78-a5178847b770@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="1125"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RCS3VTXqLrajDKI3LcDU+"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W8SCxsZjK13h7JnHohQhgwc02ts= sha1:Vg1diNY9HNtyYMYdTaENO46oi+Q=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:91099

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:29:20 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Yes, the standards committee assumes a modicum of intelligence by those
>> who read the standards.  I see you can't even reach that level.
>
> Why is the same attitude not expressed when compilers take something like:
>
>     unsigned mul(unsigned short x, unsighed short y) { return x*y; }
>
> and produce code that doesn't work when the product is in the range
> INT_MAX+1u and UINT_MAX?

Where have I heard that before?  Oh, that's right, in every thread you
post in.  Do you have a new point that you haven't made before?

-- 
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"