Re: A Famous Security Bug

On 17/04/2024 21:10, Tim Rentsch wrote:

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
 

On 24/03/2024 16:45, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

The C standard means what the ISO C group thinks it means.
They are the ultimate and sole authority.  Any discussion about what
the C standard requires that ignores that or pretends otherwise is
a meaningless exercise.

>
An intentionalist.

 That is a misunderstanding of what I said.
 

But when a text has come about by a process of argument, negotation
and compromise and votes, is that postion so easy to defend as it
might appear to be for a simpler text?

 It's not a position, it's an observation.  The ISO C committee is
the recognized authority for judgment about the meaning of the C
standard.  Whatever discussion may have gone into writing the
document is irrelevant;  all that matters is that the ISO C
group went through the approved ISO process, and hence the world
at large defers to their view as being authoritative on the
question of how to read the text of the standard.

You can't have it both ways.
One interpretation is that the /text/ of the standard is the be-all and end-all of "the C standard", in which case what the ISO C group thinks is irrelevant.  It is only the written word that matters.
The other is that it is the beliefs and intentions of the ISO C group, as the C authority, that defines "the C standard", in which case the written standard is just an approximate summary of how they define the language.  Any other published writings or discussions, such as rationale documents, WG documents, Jens Gustedt's Blog, C compilers and libraries written by committee members, etc., are relevant to understanding the group's interpretation of and meaning behind the standard.
You can't claim that /only/ the text matters and also that /only/ the committee's judgement matters.
I think most people would say that the text of the C standard is authoritative, not the committee or their opinions, judgements, thoughts or interpretations.  If the text does not match their intentions, or is - in their opinion - misunderstood by others, then it is their job to revise or update the standard document.