Re: Unspecified behavior in C

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Unspecified behavior in C
Date	2015-07-16 01:37 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mo7fsd$8q2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <mo3949$gjr$1@dont-email.me> <7be04ed7-d12b-41a5-9d9f-7c70b20936ea@googlegroups.com> <mo3dak$1ua$1@dont-email.me> <mo3m0b$4kn$1@dont-email.me> <1622f824-7bca-4214-8768-86abf1c5d867@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/16/2015 12:19 AM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:57:50 AM UTC-7, James Kuyper wrote:
...
>> Note, in particular, that we're willing to consider the possibility that
>> we're wrong about any particular items not needing to be documented.
>> We're willing to listen to your explanation why documenting these things
>> would make the documentation better (as opposed to merely bigger). I
>> can't guarantee that we'll agree when we've heard your reasons - but
>> we'll never have even a chance of learning that we were wrong unless you
>> articulate your reasons - and we've repeatedly requested that you give
>> us that chance.
> 
> And I have repeatedly said my reason is that I want everything 
> documented and you wont accept that as a reason.

It isn't. I want you to give me $200,000. Is that a reason for you to
give me that amount of money?

> ... You have not
> stated any clearer opposition to that principle other than that 
> it is too much trouble.  

The burden of proof lies on the the person proposing a change. Once
you've given a reason, we can discuss that further. You've proposed
making everything that's currently unspecified implementation-defined.
That either requires a very impressive general argument, or a large
number of less impressive arguments, one targeting each item that's
currently unspecified.

Despite the vagueness of your reasons, we have made some specific
comments why it's likely to be a bad idea. Many of the things currently
left unspecified were deliberately chosen to be unspecified because
specifying them would be far too complicated, and provide far too little
benefit. That's particularly true of the items from section that

...
>> Realistically, the fact that you've repeatedly refused the request, the
>> fact that you don't even seem to understand the request, creates the
>> strong suspicion that you are incapable of articulating a reason. 
> 
> You don't seem to recognize a reason when you see one.

"I want it documented" is not a reason deserving of attention, unless
you happen to be a dictator who has an army who can shoot anyone who
doesn't give you what you want. In that case, the appropriate attention
to be paid such a reason is to relieve you of that army, by lethal
force, if necessary.

You've provided no other reason that I can recall - so if you have
actually provided some other more compelling reason, you're right - I
didn't recognize it. Would you care to repeat it, clearly labeling it as
a reason, so there's no danger of me not recognizing it?

...
> I believe that the purpose of the kind of documentation I believe is
> needed is to describe what one can expect a machine (in the abstract
> sense - a comiler to be exact) to do.

That's already provided:

1. When the behavior is defined by the standard, you can expect it do
what the standard says.

2. When the behavior is implementation-defined, there's a list of
options provided by the standard, and you can expect the
implementation's documentation to tell you which of those options to
expect a program to choose when using that implementation.

3. When the behavior is merely unspecified, there's a list of options
provided by the standard. and you can expect that one of those options
will be chosen - you can NOT expect that any particular option will be
chosen. If you think that you need to know which option has been chosen,
there's something seriously wrong with the way you're thinking about
your C code - these things were left unspecified precisely because, in
the judgment of the C committee, you don't need to know them. If one of
the unspecified options is one that you don't want to have happen in
your code, re-write it so that it is no longer unspecified.

4. When the standard says that at least one diagnostic is required, you
can expect one diagnostic. You might get more than one, but all you're
entitled to expect is one. An implementation is required to document the
methods you can use to identify diagnostics, so you can expect to find
such a description in the documentation, and you can expect that any
diagnostics generated will match that description. The standard says
nothing else about the contents of the diagnostic message, so you're not
entitled to have expectations about that, either.

Note: while these issues are outside the scope of the standard, there's
no reason you have to actually tolerate situations where an
implementation provides inadequate diagnostics - you have a right as a
consumer of to insist on useful diagnostic messages - but it's not the C
standard which gives you that right, it's the money you're paying for
the compiler. If you're getting the compiler for free, you have less
leverage, so I'd recommend being polite when complaining about
inadequate diagnostics.

An implementation is not required to continue translating a program
after issuing a mandatory diagnostic, but it is allowed to do so. You're
not required to execute the resulting program, but you're allowed to do
so. If you do, the behavior will be undefined - see the next item.

5. When the behavior is undefined, you can't expect particular thing. If
there's any particular thing you don't want your program to do, it's
guaranteed to be one of the things permitted by "undefined behavior".
Therefore, your proper response to finding out that the behavior is
undefined is to change your code so that's no longer the case.
Exception: "undefined behavior", in the C standard, means that the C
standard imposes no requirements on the behavior. If some other document
does impose requirements, that's still "undefined behavior" as far as
the C standard is concerned. If you're willing to restrict the
portability of your code to platforms where that other document is
applicable, then you can expect the behavior of your program to conform
those requirements - not because the C standard says so, but because
that other document says so.

> ... Your attempt to compare that with
> a what I would call a log of events is laughable.

I'm not sure what it is that you're saying you would call "a log of
events". I don't recall talking about anything that could reasonably be
described that way, certainly not in the message you were responding to.
Would you care to explain that comment?

> If we want a clear debate let us try this:
> 
>    Resolved a C compiler shall document what is does to a source
>    program in every detail including cases where more than one
>    outcome is possible. 
> 
> I visualize myself as FOR and you as AGAINST.
> 
> Now it is your turn.

As the person proposing a change, you're supposed to go first.
-- 
James Kuyper

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