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: Is this valid C?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:28:17 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <lnwpc8bv32.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <o8858o$g1g$1@dont-email.me> <lnh93on5n4.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <726ddfc8-83af-47db-8a18-08d921816e82@googlegroups.com> <ln4lzomwrg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <3bee4191-6834-4b99-bf92-d8ca5b8b34e2@googlegroups.com> <lnzihgleff.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <68dc7263-0d48-432b-bc08-a6536fda6382@googlegroups.com> <lnvas4lah6.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <e9cf668e-dc05-4850-ad09-43f0b1e785da@googlegroups.com> <t9mdnSdlmLqLlinFnZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@supernews.com> <3c762130-8395-45f8-bd74-18ffa98b007c@googlegroups.com> <3IKdnU56gPHH_CnFnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@supernews.com> <e45c3039-8c40-4028-86cb-90c068b1c301@googlegroups.com> <s8ydnTlAhKG5zSjFnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@supernews.com> <c4a4babe-62dd-4a35-b146-f6c088981b02@googlegroups.com> <kaidnfGhmYXEBSvFnZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@supernews.com> <ac146a38-61ad-4444-911e-2ac4a80b0451@googlegroups.com> <o96pcu$d9s$1@dont-email.me> <22a3c409-e39b-4f55-94bb-6a478317659a@googlegroups.com> <o9728u$f91$1@dont-email.me> <cbad74ba-d708-4e54-a364-93f55a787106@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="40f2111bd31821bfebd41309549fe646"; logging-data="5755"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18rMM0GG1lj1otrCvyH/0y0"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E3kpO9jcxqVJ+fgSfBQ2TZdoNdw= sha1:kWI/ISLM9BHy0wNuwr9ggCZ6Vt8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:105305

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 12:03:05 PM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
>> On 01/03/17 17:37, supercat wrote:
>> Exactly /which/ behaviours might that be?  Be short and to the point - I
>> don't want to read a long essay.  And I expect you to be able to show in
>> the C89 standard a reference to where the behaviour is defined, and in
>> the C99 standard a reference to showing that the behaviour is now undefined.
>
> The ability to write storage as one type and read it as any type which has
> no trap representations, with no side-effect beyond yielding a possibly-
> meaningless value.
[77 lines deleted]

I note the lack of any references to the C89/C90 or C99 standard.
Such a reference would include a section number, probably a paragraph
number, and preferably a copy-and-paste of the relevant text from
the standard.

-- 
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"