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: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
Cc: Tom Rini <trini at kernel dot crashing dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:36:01 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
References: <20020104140538.A17581@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201041416560.8279-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>

On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 02:23:41PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It does NOT allow for saying that the implementation can turn something
> into "undefined".

Show me.  I maintain that the standard does not proscribe this.

The entire description is 

  3.4.1 implementation-defined behavior
  unspecified behavior where each implementation documents how
  the choice is made.

and 

  J.3 Implementation-defined behavior
  A conforming implementation is required to document its choice
  of behavior in each of the areas listed in this subclause.

GCC's choice of behaviour is to not cater to smart-asses who are
trying weasel-word their way around 6.5.6/8.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
  - From: Linus Torvalds

References:
- Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
  - From: Linus Torvalds

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