Re: Unspecified behavior in C

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Unspecified behavior in C
Date	2015-07-12 14:13 -0400
Organization	Self
Message-ID	<55A2AE38.3010002@verizon.net> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <30dbd9ab-036d-4b2a-bcea-7538f2dbe73d@googlegroups.com> <ln1tgfsu8i.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <37753968-e7fd-4076-9451-ed27b66a7330@googlegroups.com> <lnsi8unscq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <cbd1f5ff-cad1-4558-855a-980a4691063b@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/12/2015 12:52 PM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 5:15:58 PM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 12:11:53 PM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote:
...
>>>> For the order to be truly *unpredictable*, it would have to use some
>>>> high-quality random number generator to determine the order on each
>>>> call.  Is that really what you meant?
>>>>
>>>> In practice, the order is arbitrary, and may change depending on factors
>>>> that are not at all obvious.
>>>>
>>>> I am perfectly satisfied with the standard's statement that the order is
>>>> unspecified (and I'm glossing over the possibility that evaluation could
>>>> be interleaved, since there are no sequence points between argument
>>>> evaluations).
>>>>
>>>> If an implementation documented the order as "unpredictable", how would
>>>> you benefit from that information?
>>>>
>>>> If gcc, for example, provided documentation that specified exactly how
>>>> the order is determined (for a given release, target platform, and
>>>> optimization level), how would you benefit from that information?
>>>>
>>>> If the documentation merely stated that the order is unspecified, would
>>>> that satisfy you?  If so, what's the point?  That's exactly what the
>>>> standard already says.
>>>  
>>> You are assuming the standard is part of the documentation. I
>>> suppose that is fair enough but it wasn't my assumption. Perhaps
>>> I should add it. I would be much more willing to make that
>>> assumption if the standard were better written.
>>
>> You've answered none of the questions I asked.  Did you intend to?
> 
> Most of your questions appear rhetorical to me. I don't answer
> rhetorical questions.

They weren't.

For instance, "how would you benefit from that information?" Keith and I
see no way to benefit from that information, and therefore no reason to
require that it be documented. You insist that it should be documented,
which implies that you might believe it could be beneficial to have it.
If you're right about that, explaining the benefit to us would be
helpful in convincing us (and many other people) that it should be
required. If you're wrong, explaining the benefit that you incorrectly
expect to obtain will give us the opportunity to explain why you were
wrong to expect it, which might help you decide to retract your opinion.
If you refuse to answer the question, neither of those possibilities can
occur.

Similar explanations can be given why "is that really what you meant?",
"would that satisfy you?", and "what's the point?" are real, honest
questions, for which Keith would like to receive actual answers (I'd
like to hear them, too). If those explanations are not obvious, I (or
Keith) can provide them.

>> The standard documents the language.  The documentation for a
>> particular implementation is likely to be useless without that
>> knowledge.
>>
>> The C standard says that the order of evaluation of function
>> arguments is unspecified.  It also explains clearly what
>> "unspecified" means.  Apparently that's not good enough for you,
>> but you haven't explained why.
>  
> It doesn't explain what "unspecified" means other than undocumented
> implementation-defined. ...

The standard's description of "unspecified behavior" says neither
"undocumented" nor "implementation-defined" (and if it said both, that
would be a contradiction in terms, much like "negative value greater
than 10"). What it does say is:

"unspecified behavior
use of an unspecified value, or other behavior where this International
Standard provides two or more possibilities and imposes no further
requirements on which is chosen in any instance".

Key points: "this international standard", "two or more possibilities",
and "no further requirements on which is chosen". The behavior remains
"unspecified" as far as the C standard is concerned, even if some other
document (such as the POSIX standard or the documentation of a
particular implementation) does specify further requirements that narrow
it down. That's true even if they narrow it down to only a single
possibility.

> ... I have suggested already that these should
> be documented just like all the other implemenation-defined features.

Your wording ("all the other") incorrectly implies that "unspecified
behavior" is a subset of "implementation-defined". It's the other way
around:  "implementation-defined behavior" is, specifically, the subset
of "unspecified behavior" for which documentation is required. What you
mean could more accurately be expressed by saying "all unspecified
behavior should also be implementation-defined".

> And I have stated repeatedly that I want everything documented.

Yes, and "David Kleinecke wants everything defined" is a good enough
argument only for David Kleinecke. If you want to convince anyone else
that this should be done (there is, of course, no requirement that you
care about convincing any one else), you need to give arguments that go
beyond expressing your preference for documentation - you need to give
arguments that explain a benefit from requiring documentation.

Keep in mind that many of the things that are unspecified, are
unspecified because a complete specification would be too long to write
in any reasonable amount of time, too long to read in any reasonable
amount of time, too long for the writer to be sure it's correct, and too
long for the reader to clearly understand what it means. Is there any
point in writing such a document?

I'm specifically thinking of the parts section 6.5 that leave
unspecified the order in which various things occur. A complete
specification of the order would require explaining exactly how all of
the optimizations that the compiler is capable of performing work, in
full detail, in all possible circumstances. The standard allows such
optimizations only when they don't change the behavior of strictly
conforming code. If you care about which order those things occur in,
you should write your code so that the order isn't unspecified (such a
re-write is always possible). In cases where you don't care about the
order, what benefit do you derive from having the implementation
document it? Note: mandating such documentation would have the effect of
either discouraging implementors from implementing hard-to-explain
optimizations, or from bothering to qualify as a fully conforming
implementation of C.

Thread

Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 14:44 -0700
  Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-07 15:34 -0700
    Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 08:47 -0700
      Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-08 09:11 -0700
        Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 10:24 -0700
          Re: Unspecified behavior in C John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 10:46 -0700
          Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-08 13:54 -0400
          Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-08 11:12 -0700
            Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 09:15 -0700
              Re: Unspecified behavior in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-09 17:33 +0100
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 09:24 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 12:54 -0400
              Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-09 10:58 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 09:33 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 12:11 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 21:05 +0000
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 17:14 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-11 09:32 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-11 12:59 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:21 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-11 09:23 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-11 13:03 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:15 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:52 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-12 14:13 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 09:02 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 13:18 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 11:09 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 15:06 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:14 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-14 12:02 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-13 12:03 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 07:54 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-14 11:16 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-14 16:17 +0100
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 09:16 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-14 12:29 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-14 14:57 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-07-14 13:12 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-14 16:30 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-07-14 15:54 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-14 21:41 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-14 21:51 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-07-15 12:42 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-15 16:13 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-16 08:49 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 10:10 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-20 13:24 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:56 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-23 11:26 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 11:24 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-23 19:03 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 21:19 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-15 23:45 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 01:37 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-16 09:42 +0100
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:05 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-17 01:32 +0100
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 21:07 -0400
                We're good - don't you worry 'bout a thing, babe (Was: Unspecified behavior in C) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-17 07:21 +0000
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-19 20:59 +0000
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-19 22:02 +0100
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 17:59 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 23:09 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 18:48 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-17 23:09 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-19 20:57 +0000
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-19 17:22 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:57 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-19 22:16 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:30 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 14:20 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-30 15:30 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 15:53 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 16:46 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-31 00:59 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:15 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 18:28 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-31 23:28 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-04 04:07 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 18:02 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-04 21:27 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:33 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 17:11 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 12:44 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2015-08-03 12:09 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-03 13:26 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:53 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:44 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 17:59 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-05 02:23 +0100
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-04 21:39 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 19:27 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-04 00:25 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2015-08-04 11:55 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-08-04 10:31 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-04 13:32 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-04 22:46 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2015-08-10 12:16 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-10 13:26 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:46 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-05 12:34 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-14 17:57 +0100
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 10:31 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-14 18:50 +0100
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:59 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-14 11:34 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-19 20:46 +0000
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-12 12:07 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 19:53 +0000
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-12 16:12 -0400
              Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-09 14:20 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-09 12:18 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 09:47 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 13:36 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-11 09:19 -0700
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-11 12:56 -0400
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C gordonb.j19di@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-07-11 20:36 -0500
                Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 10:10 -0700
              Re: Unspecified behavior in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-09 20:13 +0100
          Re: Unspecified behavior in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-09 11:17 +0000
        Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 10:37 -0700
          Re: Unspecified behavior in C John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 10:51 -0700
          Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-08 14:14 -0400
          Re: Unspecified behavior in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-08 12:19 -0700
      Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-08 12:14 -0400
        Re: Unspecified behavior in C David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 10:40 -0700
          Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-08 14:29 -0400
            Re: Unspecified behavior in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-09 11:20 +0000
      Re: Unspecified behavior in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-09 02:30 -0500
  Re: Unspecified behavior in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-07 22:30 -0400

csiph-web