This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC)

Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 06:36:26PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:

 It certainly wasn't meant to be.  It was meant to be a dispassionate
description of the state of facts.  Software that violates the C standard
just *is* "buggy" or "incorrect", and your personal pride has absolutely
nothing to do with it.



Then your definition of "incorrect" is uninteresting.  Per your
definition, "use of implementation-defined behaviour is incorrect",
essentially no non-trivial program is correct.  Including gcc for a
start, which can't be correct, ever.


Nope, there is nothing in the C standard that suggests that a program
relying on implementation-defined behavior is incorrect of buggy, and that
has nothing to do with what Dave Korn wrote. There is a world of
difference between undefined and implementation-defined.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]