🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <44u0jm$9pr@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
>
>When talking on C, I use a related construction as an example of something
>that is simultaneously illegal and required to work.  I.e. a conforming
>compiler may reject the program but, if it fails to detect the error, the
>compiled code must execute correctly.

I have a hard time understanding this. If the code is "illegal" in the sense
of requiring a diagnostic, then a conforming compiler MUST detect and diagnose
the error. If it doesn't, then it  isn't a conforming compiler, and all bets
as to what the resulting code must do are off. Even if it detects the error,
and generates code, how can you justify any claim about what illegal code
"must" do?

>
>There is actually some dissent about this.  Some people hold the view that
>implementation-defined behaviour allows the compiler writer to say "if you
>use this construction, you will get no error message and your program will
>go bananas."  This is clearly not what the ANSI committee intended compiler
>writers to do :-)

Correct, but what exactly is implementation defined in the example you gave?

--

Chris Volpe				Phone: (518) 387-7766 (Dial Comm 8*833
GE Corporate R&D			Fax:   (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8, Schenectady, NY 12301		Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com