Sujet : Re: Bart's Language
De : antispam (at) *nospam* fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 22. Mar 2025, 17:52:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : To protect and to server
Message-ID : <vrmpt8$2o2ob$1@paganini.bofh.team>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : tin/2.6.2-20221225 ("Pittyvaich") (Linux/6.1.0-9-amd64 (x86_64))
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.
-- Waldek Hebisch
Bart's Language
Re: int a = a (Was: Bart's Language)