Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Bart van Ingen Schenau, post: 3054633"]
Wrong. In this group the convention is that if a term or phrase is
defined by the C standard, then that definition is how the term
should/will be interpreted when used in a post to this group.
The term 'undefined behaviour' has such a definition in the standard, so
you can't just interpret it the way you do.

You seem to imply that, if a program invokes UB, then whatever behaviour
results is wrong, because showing behaviour means that it must be
defined, which contradicts your interpretation of 'undefined
behaviour'. This leads to the logical conclusion that 'undefined
behaviour' can not exist.

The fact that the standard does not define the behaviour does not mean
that you can't speculate about what a particular compiler/processor/OS
would do when confronted with such code.
Because there is no definition for the behaviour, you can't be SURE what
it will be, but you CAN speculate.

So, how many bug-reports have you filed with the compiler builders that
their behaviour for the code above is incorrect?

Bart v Ingen Schenau
[/QUOTE]

Verification