PR 25512: pointer overflow defined?

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

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