Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #101502
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Function pointers conversions and UB |
| Date | 2017-01-12 09:41 +0000 |
| Organization | Fix this later |
| Message-ID | <o57itu$f1m$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <o564ak$fjf$1@dont-email.me> <o56f1m$njp$1@dont-email.me> <o56fha$p3m$1@dont-email.me> <ce2dc6d1-a298-4dd5-acc6-d90ab840d97d@googlegroups.com> |
On 12/01/17 05:49, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 5:37:50 PM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> Yes, absolutely. The diagnostic message is a requirement on the >> implementation, but it is not under any obligation to stop translation. > > An implementation is required to produce some kind of diagnostic when > given any file containing a constraint violation, but for constraint > violations not involving the #error directive the Standard doesn't require > that the "diagnostic" have anything to do with the violation. A conforming > implementation could output "This is a diagnostic" as its sole message when > given *any* input, well-formed or otherwise, which does not contain an > #error directive. The implementation doesn't even have to say that the diagnostic message is diagnostic. It could, for example, respond to syntax errors or constraint violations by printing "honi soit qui mal y pense". Or even "translation succeeded"! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Function pointers conversions and UB Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-11 21:26 +0100
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-11 15:57 -0500
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-11 14:37 -0800
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2017-01-11 21:46 +0000
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-11 13:51 -0800
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-11 17:06 -0500
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-12 00:29 +0100
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-11 23:37 +0000
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-11 21:49 -0800
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 09:41 +0000
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-12 10:52 +0100
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 09:58 +0000
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-12 13:08 +0100
Re: Function pointers conversions and UB Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-12 13:45 +0000
csiph-web