Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: mixed double and single signed division
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:25:02 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <877f28g7pt.fsf@nightsong.com>
References: <bbcfd72a-4597-4839-aba0-3d4b98009995@googlegroups.com> <odh5gb$1j9o$1@gioia.aioe.org> <zY2dneeIGsT8u2HFnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@supernews.com> <f8a33236-78f6-462e-9bc1-67e2ca5c92b7@googlegroups.com> <2017Apr24.151206@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <57830405-b5fe-4bf5-88dd-88a3838f1341@googlegroups.com> <1vGdnY977oFcNmPFnZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@supernews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c5117d3acda5babf921cd2f7c18d36c7"; logging-data="17646"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1M+fv223/AedOeD3sH0Il"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TVH/r/jQygsYu/QbzD2WalqFezM= sha1:24ITtqe0GlelryQawVvCbzcf5GA=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:58079

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> The important distinction is that a standard system must document its
> response to all "implementation *defined*" items mentioned in the
> Standard. There is no such requirement on "undefined behavior".

I don't understand the difference.  Can the target system document its
response to implementation-defined item X as "doing X makes demons fly
out of your nose"?  If yes, implementation-defined is no different from
UB.