Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v4dtlt$23m6i$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: "undefined behavior"? Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 05:47:57 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: <v4dtlt$23m6i$1@dont-email.me> References: <666a095a$0$952$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <8t3k6j5ikf5mvimvksv2t91gbt11ljdfgb@4ax.com> <666a18de$0$958$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <87y1796bfn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <666a2a30$0$952$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <87tthx65qu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 06:47:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3f1d35f1df29894379c714fe809cf0a2"; logging-data="2218194"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MrUYAA71IWEJ0juX+wubIwhvk+ioAOF8=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vYelRtCeURHRJOu77FSImYmhfbE= In-Reply-To: <87tthx65qu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 2328 On 13/06/2024 01:33, Keith Thompson wrote: > > printf is a variadic function, so the types of the arguments after > the format string are not specified in its declaration. The printf > function has to *assume* that arguments have the types specified > by the format string. This: > printf("%d\n", foo); > (probably) has undefined behavior if foo is of type size_t. > And isn't that a nightmare? > There is no implicit conversion to the expected type. Note that > the format string doesn't have to be a string literal, so it's > not always even possible for the compiler to check the types. > Variadic functions give you a lot of flexibility at the cost of > making some type errors difficult to detect. > > (I wrote "probably" because size_t *might* be a typedef for unsigned > int, and there are special rules about arguments of corresponding > signed and unsigned types.) > We just can't have size_t variables swilling around in prgrams for these reasons. -- Check out my hobby project. http://malcolmmclean.github.io/babyxrc