🚀 go-pugleaf

--text follows this line--
In article <4e2eo4$ogq@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick
Maclaren) writes: 
<snip>
   This is a very good question.  I understand the standard to imply
   that all previous defined behaviour must have 'occurred', but
   there is (in general) no necessity for it to have had an effect
   on the outside world (assuming that such a thing exists).  Some
   constructions (e.g. fflush()) require effects to be transmitted
   to the environment.

Could you please elaborate on this? 3.16 seems to be saying that the
behaviour of the program is undefined. It refers to both translation
and execution phases, and even allows the translation to terminate: in
which case there is no execution at all! I think a compiler core
dumping is as conforming a response as the program starting with the
program starting with an attempted execution of Bach, presumably
because the compiler ignored the possibility and that led to a bizarre
executable. 

So, I do not understand how you can demand `previous' defined
behaviour to have occurred? Previous to what? Previous to the
attempted translation of the construct leading to undefined behavior? 

Cheers
Tanmoy

--
tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov(128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"tanmoy@lanl.gov"(1.218=1242)
Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87545 H:#9,3000,Trinity Drive,NM87544
Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
<http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
fax: 1 (505) 665 3003   voice: 1 (505) 665 4733    [ Home: 1 (505) 662 5596 ]