Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!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: usecases of void foo(char **b) {}
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:37:11 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <lnwpg3gz48.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <f04d8120-e4c9-464b-923c-7dc262da5b5b@googlegroups.com> <2609ed15-7c52-4d08-bf8c-2b9ef44fa809@googlegroups.com> <e81fohFjf7dU1@mid.individual.net> <nvhi9u$dhu$1@dont-email.me> <89e9cc99-3b51-44f1-91bc-f74b6f2b7f5a@googlegroups.com> <nviaht$1vk$1@dont-email.me> <34d35fa8-fe94-4665-b0e1-21de4f507fe4@googlegroups.com> <nvif26$jg8$1@dont-email.me> <52475847-d45a-4c24-9661-1ebe869759b3@googlegroups.com> <nvkniv$4pk$1@dont-email.me> <e9734b1d-1503-4373-a133-5549c3a462f2@googlegroups.com> <kfnmvh0shjc.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <d46e8219-148c-4bcf-8ed3-a94355ef5b34@googlegroups.com> <lnpolwiisq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <6c6a30d0-94cd-42a6-884a-2ac99995e681@googlegroups.com> <lneg2ciflg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <62d12ca1-490e-447d-b867-69b1458517be@googlegroups.com> <ln60noibz3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <d7d3bd42-d9f9-4ad3-988b-ab97a2d87309@googlegroups.com> <ln1syci66v.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <939b0c10-54c9-408d-89c4-34868c3f63af@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4ec4d910e7b984fdf1507bf694506dd1"; logging-data="18752"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wHAKE7vtcfH3ZtfGWYBzl"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:izs+0+CWVo4MilWJFSxYK99mbZs= sha1:rY/EA1AjphKRhk0pVB6/nSgIbmk=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:96694

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>> > He would have explicitly specified in the documentation for his
>> > implementation that overflow uses silent-wraparound semantics in
>> > all cases, and mentioned that programmers should not assume anything
>> > about the integer-overflow behavior of any implementation that does
>> > not explicitly specify them, even if the underlying platform would
>> > use silent-wraparound semantics.
>> 
>>     The handling of overflow, divide check, and other exceptions in
>>     expression evaluation is not defined by the language.
>> 
>> Which he did, in 1988.
>
> Where does he say "even if the underlying platform would use silent
> wraparound semantics"?

The same place he says "even if the user is wearning a plaid shirt".

>                         That's a key part of what I would suggest he
> would have said if he'd intended anything resembling the behavior of
> modern compilers.

Surely the phrase "not defined by the language" is clear enough.

-- 
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"