Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/18/24 11:44, Richard Damon wrote:I use a compiler option to force 32-bit code.On 5/18/24 11:34 AM, James Kuyper wrote:software that runs under Widows and LinuxOn 5/18/24 09:02, Mikko wrote:On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:...>>>> Fully operationalYou cannot prove that code is strictly conforming empirically. It mightproves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.
simply happen to work on every system you've tried it on. Have you ever
tested it on a system where code and data pointers are different sizes?
--Such code has undefined behavior "by the omission of any explicit>No, it does not. As the program is not strictly conforming>
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.
Which non-standard extension does it use?
I think the issue is the casting of a pointer to function to a pointer
to object, which is one of the grey areas in the standard. (which occurs
in code not shown)
>
It is not specified that such a cast is allowed, but it also isn't
specifically disallowed, it is just omitted as a case in the listing of
te possibilities for casting.
definition of behavior." (4p2).
Strictly conforming programs cannot have undefined behavior (4p5).
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.