Sujet : Re: Bart's Language
De : jameskuyper (at) *nospam* alumni.caltech.edu (James Kuyper)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 23. Mar 2025, 01:12:52
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vrnjm4$12csc$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/22/25 12:52, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
On 3/22/25 10:37, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Valid responses to undefined behavior include "terminating a translation
or execution (with the issuance of a diagnostic message)". In other
words, if a compiler is able to prove that a program has undefined
behavior (that will occur on each execution), it can reject it at
compile time.
>
This was probably subject to previous disscussion here, IIRC
some posters here claimed that even in such case implementation
is supposed to produce an executable.
>
There is no such requirement. Could you identify who made such a claim,
when, with what arguments? My newserver's archives only go back three
months, and if the claim was made by somebody I've got killfiled, I
won't be able to see it even during that time period. Google Groups
stopped archiving new messages quite a while ago. Therefore, it might be
best to quote the relevant text, rather than merely identifying it.
Sorry, is would be quite a lot of work to find relevant messages.
Then I will go ahead with the assumption that those arguments are
invalid until they are identfied.
Bart's Language
Re: int a = a (Was: Bart's Language)