Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 06:59:32 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <86v7zep35n.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <memo.20240830164247.19028y@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me> <vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me> <vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me> <vb2hir$1ju7q$1@dont-email.me> <8lcadjhnlcj5se1hrmo232viiccjk5alu4@4ax.com> <vb3k0m$1rth7$1@dont-email.me> <17d615c6a9e70e9fabe1721c55cfa176@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 15:59:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8d0da47a40f6e375f3916ecef59d9608";
	logging-data="3018662"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fdk5m+yuqsNBqq4BuAA5IF4wz4SyB6D4="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:McwbabCR9ZApr9144PH6adZrEvk=
	sha1:RBjAuhZqDyDM5SA5knv0jHGhL54=
Bytes: 2104

mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:

> On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 5:55:34 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> schrieb:
>>
>>> I'm not going to argue about whether UB in code is wrong.  The
>>> question I have concerns what to do with something that explicitly is
>>> mentioned as UB in some standard N, but was not addressed in previous
>>> standards.
>>>
>>> Was it always UB?  Or should it be considered ID until it became UB?
>>
>> Can you give an exapmple?
>
> Memcopy() with overlapping pointers.

Calling memcpy() between objects that overlap has always been
explicitly and specifically undefined behavior, going back to
the original ANSI C standard.