From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2E002088-41D4-46D9-A614-566C31F04E76@me.com> References: <20151125160347.GN20646@sigint.cs.purdue.edu> <79F2255E-5E76-43E8-83B3-0DFB2CD34AC7@bitblocks.com> <3175949A-26D0-4C4A-BB7D-4E5A3EA7F8B7@me.com> <2E002088-41D4-46D9-A614-566C31F04E76@me.com> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:50:13 +0000 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b350c67a6000525745e85 Subject: Re: [9fans] Undefined Behaviour in C Topicbox-Message-UUID: 77d90db0-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --001a114b350c67a6000525745e85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 26 November 2015 at 16:42, Brantley Coile wrote: > I=E2=80=99m still kind of dubious that there are any structures where one= would > not catch a null pointer. > I don't think there are any. In practice, ome other value lower down will be accessed first. Unless the compiler introduces its own invisible erroneous behaviour. --001a114b350c67a6000525745e85 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On 26 November 2015 at 16:42, Brantley Coile <brantleycoile@me.com= > wrote:
I=E2=80=99m still kind of dubious that t= here are any structures where one would not catch a null pointer.
=

I don't think there are any. In practice, ome ot= her value lower down will be accessed first.
Unless the compiler introduces its own invisible erroneous behaviour.

--001a114b350c67a6000525745e85--