Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #401213 > unrolled thread

Re: this girl calls c ugly

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 09:37 -0700
    Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 17:29 -0700
      Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:30 +0000

#401213 — Re: this girl calls c ugly

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> [...]
>
>> The text of the standard explicitly carves this out;  or, rather,
>> it attempts to.  If the result of an expression is not
>> representable in the target type, _regardless of whether that's
>> due to UB or not_, a diagnostic is required.
>
> [...]
>
> How would an expression (appearing in a context that requires an
> integer constant expression) not "evaluate to a constant that is in
> the range of representable values for its type" other than by UB?

I can think of one.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#401226

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> [...]
>>
>>> The text of the standard explicitly carves this out;  or, rather,
>>> it attempts to.  If the result of an expression is not
>>> representable in the target type, _regardless of whether that's
>>> due to UB or not_, a diagnostic is required.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> How would an expression (appearing in a context that requires an
>> integer constant expression) not "evaluate to a constant that is in
>> the range of representable values for its type" other than by UB?
>
> I can think of one.

So you've decided to be a troll.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401309

In article <115r09e$3qb10$1@kst.eternal-september.org>,
Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> The text of the standard explicitly carves this out;  or, rather,
>>>> it attempts to.  If the result of an expression is not
>>>> representable in the target type, _regardless of whether that's
>>>> due to UB or not_, a diagnostic is required.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> How would an expression (appearing in a context that requires an
>>> integer constant expression) not "evaluate to a constant that is in
>>> the range of representable values for its type" other than by UB?
>>
>> I can think of one.
>
>So you've decided to be a troll.

I think it's been that way for a while, sadly.

His MO seems to be to make a claim, be shown to be wrong,
disappear for an extended stretch, and then reappear with a
non-response.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web