[PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> <<Sure. Except is must say _something_. It must be defined behaviour. That's
> what "implementation defined" means.
> >>
>
> Defined does NOT mean it works as you want. For instance a C compiler would
> be free to say.
>
> If you cast an integer to a pointer, the system disk will be deleted. This
> is an undesirable implementation, but not a non-conforming one.

Yes. I agree. But the compiler has to say _what_ it does. It can't just
avoid the issue.

(Or rather, it obviously _can_ avoid the issue, but by golly, you
shouldn't claim that you are standards-compliant in this area if you do).

> I disagree, and I don't see that you have provided any argument to support
> this very peculiar position. Yes, a conforming compiler must document
> what it does, but it can do anything it likes.

Yes yes yes. But gcc does NOT document what it does.

		Linus