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

[Robert Dewar]

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.