Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)
Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 15:31:13 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <87ikmaenv2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgp8b$15i5e$25@dont-email.me>
	<vvgpk6$1a47o$4@dont-email.me> <vvgpo7$15i5e$26@dont-email.me>
	<vvgq6o$1acph$1@dont-email.me> <vvgqgl$15i5e$27@dont-email.me>
	<vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me> <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me>
	<vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me> <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me>
	<vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me> <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me> <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me>
	<vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me> <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me>
	<vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me> <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me> <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4>
	<87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 00:31:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="302a6dd640940106301f9e87fdade96e";
	logging-data="2264471"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183SeypFn+7pz0rRx8Q9rmp"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AKAPfd1akWPfHdYvNjtO215rrtA=
	sha1:lxiInKCjuO/FwI3bXX2kcxa9I0c=
Bytes: 2954

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> The standard does say that it does not specify "the size or
> complexity of a program and its data that will exceed the capacity of
> any specific data-processing system or the capacity of a particular
> processor".  It doesn't explicitly say that a program that exceeds
> the system's capacity has undefined behavior, but "Undefined behavior
> is otherwise indicated in this document by the words "undefined
> behavior" **or by the omission of any explicit definition of
> behavior**" (emphasis added).
[...]

I misplaced a quotation mark and did not quote the entire relevant
paragraph.  To be painfully clear, the following is Section 4,
Paragraph 2 of the N3096 draft of the ISO C23 standard:

    If a "shall" or "shall not" requirement that appears outside of
    a constraint or runtime-constraint is violated, the behavior is
    undefined. Undefined behavior is otherwise indicated in this
    document by the words "undefined behavior" or by the omission
    of any explicit definition of behavior. There is no difference
    in emphasis among these three; they all describe "behavior that
    is undefined".

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */