🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <829068682snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>,
Lawrence Kirby  <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Undefined behaviour is otherwise indicated in this International Standard
> by the words ``undefined behaviour'' or by the omission of any explicit
> defintion of behaviour. There is no difference in emphasis among these
> three; they all describe ``behaviour that is undefined.''"
>
>This means that code has undefined behaviour unless you can show what the
>defined behaviour is according to the standard. In all of your examples
>the behaviour can vary depending on the actual implementation of qsort().
>In the absense of any other limitation in the standard (such as a statement
>of implementation-defined behaviour), this means the behaviour is undefined.

No, this is circular logic. A library function must be inferred to do
only what its specification says, and nothing else; you can't use
undescribed behaviour to deduce that a specific call to that function is
undefined. Otherwise you could say "and abs() might set all long variables
to 0".

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | If you lie to the compiler,
cdwf@cityscape.co.uk   (work, preferred) | it will get its revenge.
clive@stdc.demon.co.uk (home)            |   - Henry Spencer