This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- From: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- To: rth at redhat dot com, torvalds at transmeta dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, trini at kernel dot crashing dot org
- Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:11:36 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:30:39 -0800 (PST)
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
> To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
> cc: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Right. But note how there _must_ be a choice. That's the part that
> says it's not "undefined", and is the only real difference between
> undefined and implementation-defined, wouldn't you agree?
> Ie an implementation can NOT just say "our implementation-defined
> behaviour for X is undefined behaviour". That's not documenting anything.
We have a choice, the choice is to define it to render the expression
into the same category as the standard undefined behavior. Our choice
has been made, if you wish to contest it, please quote the standard
that says that we are not allowed to make this choice in this way.