Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Jun 28, 2005, at 1:12 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | On Jun 28, 2005, at 12:34 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | | > | > The attitude that "undefined behaviour" should be interpreted | > | > as "we should not make things more useful when we can" is beyond | > | > understanding. | > | | > | Then C/C++ aliasing rules go out the window really or maybe I | > | misunderstand | > | what you are trying to say? | > | > yes, you misunderstand what I'm saying. | | But you did not explain your full then, I still don't understand. | Here is the full quote from the C99 standard about what undefined | behavior:
Andrew -- Nobody is denying that signed interger overflow is "undefined behaviour". So, your keeping saying "but, look the standard says it is undefined beahviour" is irrelevant to the discussion; it is only recitation that does not help making progress. What people are saying is that "undefined behaviour" does not necessarily mean "Go'auld semantics". Is that hard to understand? [...] | See it even points out integer overflow as a good example. See also | how it says | the standard imposes no requirement, which means the compiler should | be able | to erase the hard drive each and every time you invoke undefined | behavior. and it should also be able to take your life. Do you want it to actually do it? If yes, I suggest you create your own compiler that does that and leave us work on a compiler that does something more positive. -- Gaby
