[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130616192546.GG6548@port70.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:25:47 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: valgrind problems
* Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr> [2013-06-16 20:02:00 +0200]:
> as I said up-thread, this is not my own opinion (I personally would
> argue as you do) but expressed in a recent discussion on the list of
> the C standards committee. In addition there is an 10 year old reply
> to a DR that goes in that direction.
i see
> And to clarify that, this is not about UB, but about the stability of
> the value.
i don't see any way "unstable" value can be allowed in c
without invoking UB
objects have to retain their last stored value or their
initial value
(so object access cannot be unstable)
the abstract machine is defined in terms of sequencing
side effects and value computations
(so indeterminate values can only have unstable meaning
if all operators have well defined semantics for them:
eg. the semantics of '+' should say that the value of
the result is the sum of the operands or indeterminate
if any of the operands is indeterminate)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
