From: steffen@sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso)
Subject: [TUHS] Unix stories
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 17:30:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170104163017.XtxbzN7PQ%steffen@sdaoden.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1483545543.1599443.837188969.6EAAD62B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> wrote:
|On Wed, Jan 4, 2017, at 09:54, Ron Natalie wrote:
|>> I assume you're imagining it as being equivalent to i = j + i + \
|>> 1, with a redundant store operation.
|>
|> It's what the language standard specifies, not imagination. C and C++
|> state that modifying twice between sequence points or using the value
|> other than to compute the value for a store is undefined behavior.
|> The languages put no constraint on what may happen when you do this.
|
|But I'm talking about the alternate universe in which the person I was
|replying to is justified in thinking that it's clear what he means, vs a
|'plausible' implementation that could arise from methods of translating
|expressions into machine operations (since people don't tend to respond
|to "it's undefined because it is, and the compiler can arbitrarily mess
|things up because it's allowed to by the fact that it's undefined"
|without a plausible theory of why something might ever behave in a way
|other than the obvious way)
It is clear in assembler, and C was ment, as i understand it, as
a higher-level portable abstraction of assembler. Which alternate
universe do you refer to?
--steffen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-04 16:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-01 5:00 Larry McVoy
2017-01-01 6:48 ` Nick Downing
2017-01-02 2:03 ` Steve Johnson
2017-01-02 2:42 ` Nick Downing
2017-01-02 6:01 ` Steve Nickolas
2017-01-02 6:21 ` Warren Toomey
2017-01-02 6:25 ` Nick Downing
2017-01-04 4:07 ` Steve Nickolas
2017-01-02 7:29 ` arnold
2017-01-02 22:52 ` Dave Horsfall
2017-01-02 22:56 ` Larry McVoy
2017-01-02 22:59 ` Ronald Natalie
2017-01-02 22:58 ` Ronald Natalie
2017-01-02 23:23 ` Tim Bradshaw
2017-01-03 0:49 ` Larry McVoy
2017-01-03 11:36 ` Joerg Schilling
2017-01-04 13:04 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-01-04 14:07 ` Random832
2017-01-04 14:54 ` Ron Natalie
2017-01-04 15:59 ` Random832
2017-01-04 16:30 ` Steffen Nurpmeso [this message]
2017-01-04 16:32 ` Random832
2017-01-04 16:51 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-01-04 16:54 ` Random832
2017-01-04 16:58 ` Ron Natalie
2017-01-04 17:38 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-01-04 17:47 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-01-04 18:51 ` Steve Johnson
2017-01-04 17:08 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-01-04 16:22 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-01-04 16:35 ` Random832
2017-01-04 17:03 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-02-09 13:46 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-02-09 14:55 ` Random832
2017-02-09 17:15 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2017-01-01 13:11 ` Ron Natalie
2017-01-01 16:50 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-01 21:45 ` Nemo
2017-01-02 2:53 ` Wesley Parish
2017-01-02 14:30 Doug McIlroy
2017-01-02 18:36 ` Dan Cross
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170104163017.XtxbzN7PQ%steffen@sdaoden.eu \
--to=steffen@sdaoden.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).