Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Unspecified behavior in C Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:19:01 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <353ff1a5-5e38-4791-9e5b-2c3d6589079c@googlegroups.com> <6289bbbb-e9a0-4e98-8352-e2f9795a1e31@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="25802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VjDuOJSfoMq6BCaLMQdVh" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:WRLwRnGTh5BXem+jP8xfh8amYIc= sha1:24sOROk8T837Q3BhS8wQVslbJ78= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:64957 David Kleinecke writes: > On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote: >> David Kleinecke writes: >> > >> > In the same way (see my final paragraph) I think the standard should >> > require the form of the compiler output and other suchlike matters to >> > be documented. I don't care how they are done - but they should be >> > documented. >> >> You're just repeating your original assertion. You say, repeatedly, >> that the behavior *should* be documented. You haven't explained >> *why* it should be documented, or shown any benefit from such >> a requirement. >> >> Any information that's actually relevant to programmers probably >> already is documented, whether the standard requires it or not. >> If your compiler fails to document something that you actually need >> to know, complain to your compiler vendor. >> >> ... >> >> Compiler vendors are already free to document anything they like *if >> they choose to*. Nobody is going to produce documentation for >> irrelevant choices because you thinkÿ they "should". >> >> Again, what benefit would such a requirement have? (If you can answer >> that without using the word "should", I'll be impressed.) > > Documentation can be written for several different reasons. One form > instructs a potential user in how to use the compiler. A part of this > documentation describes what the characteristics of the compiler are > to allow a potential user to decide whether or not to use the program. > For example, "This is a C compiler". The question seems to be about > how much information must be supplied to allow a potential user to > make an intellegent decsiion. Each implementation can document whatever it likes, whether the standard requires it or not. You can certainly take that into account when deciding whether to use an implementation. In some cases (such as the order of initialization of static objects), the *lack* of documentation might slightly incline me in favor of an implementation, since it means the implementers aren't wasting their time documenting something that is of no use to me. (Emphasis on "slightly".) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org 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"