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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26088

Re: scanf()

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:

> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>  Keith Thompson:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> There are worse possibilities than wrong results.  If the input includes
>>> something like "1.0e999999999", the behavior is undefined.
>>> 
>> But what is the program meant to do with such an input value? UB is probably the
>> best thing that can happen to it.
>
> That's absurd.  Undefined behavior means that whatever the *worst*
> thing is, it can happen, whether that's crashing the program, or
> continuing to execute quietly with bad data, or reformatting your
> hard drive.  [snip elaboration]

It doesn't.  I admit that's often a useful way of thinking about
undefined behavior, but that isn't what the term actually means
(and I'm sure I'm not saying anything you don't already know).
When the Standard says "undefined behavior", that means it
imposes no requirements:  as far as the Standard is concerned,
anything goes and everything is acceptable.

But, the Standard isn't the only force operating here.  There is
also the compiler that was used;  the operating system within
which the program is being run;  possibly multiple levels of
those if the program is being run in a virtual environment;  the
physical hardware that the program is being run on;  and, going
all the way to the bottom, the physical universe we all live in.
Any one of those levels could serve to limit or define the set of
potential behaviors available.

So, at the same time that I agree that thinking of undefined
behavior as meaning "anything can happen", I would argue that it's
also important to keep in mind the actual implications of undefined
behavior, which can be a positive in some circumstances.  I might
not have chosen his phrasing, but the basic point Malcolm is making
is essentially correct - "undefined behavior" is never really
"undefined", but rather defined by elements and forces outside the
sphere of what the Standard chooses to address.  Not knowing what
defines the behavior or what the definition is doesn't mean they
don't exist.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

scanf() Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2012-08-06 20:58 +0000
  Re: scanf() Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-08-06 17:29 -0400
    Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 14:40 -0700
  Re: scanf() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 17:39 -0400
  Re: scanf() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-06 22:49 +0100
    Re: scanf() Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2012-08-07 18:37 +0000
      Re: scanf() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-07 15:01 -0400
      Re: scanf() Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-08-07 15:03 -0400
      Re: scanf() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-07 20:51 +0100
      Re: scanf() John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2012-08-09 14:00 -0700
        Re: scanf() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-11 03:08 -0700
          Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-11 10:40 -0700
            Re: scanf() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-11 13:34 -0700
              Re: scanf() "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-11 23:04 +0100
              Re: scanf() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-11 19:20 -0400
              Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-11 17:30 -0700
                Re: scanf() Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-08-11 20:41 -0400
                Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-11 18:13 -0700
                Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-11 18:16 -0700
                Re: scanf() Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-08-11 21:32 -0400
                Re: scanf() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-12 04:07 -0700
                Re: scanf() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-12 08:03 -0400
                Re: scanf() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-12 06:41 -0700
                Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-12 13:39 -0700
                Re: scanf() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-12 14:20 -0700
                Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-12 16:33 -0700
                Re: scanf() "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-08-13 12:22 +0200
                Re: scanf() Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-05 00:13 +0300
                Re: scanf() Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 14:18 -0700
                Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-07 15:02 -0700
                Re: scanf() Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 17:25 -0700
                Re: scanf() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-07 18:35 -0700
              Re: scanf() Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2012-08-12 21:05 -0700
        Re: scanf() Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-11 17:37 -0500

csiph-web