Hello Paul,
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 01:11:01 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> However, suppose f is defined this way:
>
> void
> f (int *b)
> {
> if (*b) // error condition ...
> exit (2); // ... that leads to termination
> *b = 1;
> }
>
> If [[reproducible]] allows this sort of thing, then it's not valid to
> do the optimization that I mentioned, because it will cause the
> program to exit with status 1 rather than status 2.
Yes, but is this a problem? `f` is clearly not idempotent if `*b`
initially is `0`, so it is not unsequenced.
Allowing termination to happen under certain inputs would not mean
that the other part of the definition of the term can be ignored, no?
Such a function that terminates could not be idempotent if it
changes the pointed to argument to a state that is invalid for a
second call.
Thanks
Jₑₙₛ
--
:: ICube :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: deputy director ::
:: Université de Strasbourg :::::::::::::::::::::: ICPS ::
:: INRIA antenne de Strasbourg :::::::::::::::::: Camus ::
:: INRIA PIQ program Strasbourg :::::::::: piq.inria.fr ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ☎ +33 368854536 ::
:: https://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
