Sujet : Re: Can you please verify that the analysis of these C functions is correct?
De : jameskuyper (at) *nospam* alumni.caltech.edu (James Kuyper)
Groupes : comp.lang.c comp.lang.c++Date : 22. Jun 2024, 22:49:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v57gtr$3un26$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/22/24 3:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/22/2024 10:58 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
...
Most UB is there to allow optimizations, also in this case.
I've got no problem with that.
>
>
Humm. Sounds reasonable. UB is there to be defined by a non-conforming
compiler? ;^)
By definition, non-conforming implementations can always do whatever
they like, regardless of whether the code has undefined behavior, merely
unspecified behavior, or even standard-defined behavior.
UB is for the benefit of conforming implementations. It gives them
permission to handle code that has UB any way they want, without
sacrificing conformance.
Can you please verify that the analysis of these C functions is correct?
Re: Can you please verify that the analysis of these C functions is correct?
