This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 25512: pointer overflow defined?
Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
| > Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
| >
| > | >However, we have an obligation to define what those mappings are.
| > | >
| > | Why?
| >
| > Because it is an implementation-defined behaviour and we have to
| > document how the choice is made.
|
| Can you state some language in the standard that says we have to do
| this?
Most of this were in my previous message, but I suspect they got lost
in the snippage.
3.4.1
[#1] implementation-defined behavior
unspecified behavior where each implementation documents how
the choice is made
This is part of the reasons why JSM started doc/implement-c.texi.
-- Gaby