Related articles |
---|
[3 earlier articles] |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) (2022-01-08) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality spibou@gmail.com (Spiros Bousbouras) (2022-01-08) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) (2022-01-09) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality spibou@gmail.com (Spiros Bousbouras) (2022-01-09) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2022-01-09) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) (2022-01-10) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-01-10) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2022-01-11) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality 480-992-1380@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2022-01-11) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-01-11) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) (2022-01-12) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2022-01-13) |
Re: what is defined, was for or against equality tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) (2022-01-13) |
From: | gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Mon, 10 Jan 2022 16:58:55 -0800 (PST) |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | <17d70d74-1cf1-cc41-6b38-c0b307aeb35a@gkc.org.uk> 22-01-016 22-01-018 22-01-020 22-01-027 22-01-032 |
Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="20314"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
Keywords: | C, standards |
Posted-Date: | 10 Jan 2022 21:28:16 EST |
In-Reply-To: | 22-01-032 |
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:11:55 AM UTC-8, Thomas Koenig wrote:
(snip)
> I see C conflating two separate concepts: Programm errors and
> behavior that is outside the standard. "Undefined behavior is
> always a programming error" does not work; that would make
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <string.h>
> int main()
> {
> char a[] = "Hello, world!\n";
> write (1, a, strlen(a));
> return 0;
> }
Without the:
#include <unistd.h>
I agree that this would be undefined behavior. But with the include file,
you are agreeing to use whatever standard the include file belongs to.
The include file defines the arguments to write(), but even more indicates
that you either supply (in another file), or use an otherwise supplied library
defining write().
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.