printf("%d", INT_MAX);

[Flash Gordon]

Re: printf("%d ", INT_MAX);

CBFalconer wrote, On 15/03/07 21:52:

Eric Sosman wrote:
... snip ...

> The distinction between strictly conforming and conforming
>programs is one that the Standard is pretty much forced to make,
>but it has always seemed to me that the Standard's definition
>of strict conformance is too restrictive to be as useful as it
>should be. When a program like Kenneth Brody's turns out not
>to be strictly conforming, I think the baby has been thrown out
>with the bath water. But I have no better definition to offer,
>so I can't complain very convincingly!

>
I don't think a strictly conforming *program* exists,

<pedantic>
What about:
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
</pedantic>

but many
strictly conforming *routines* do exist. I.E. those routines that
can be implemented anywhere.

I think we can deal with code that is not strictly conforming within
certain limits. Such as, to take a simple example, a program printing
values from limits.h
--
Flash Gordon

[Eric Sosman]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Flash Gordon wrote On 03/16/07 14:48,:

CBFalconer wrote, On 15/03/07 21:52:
>

>>Eric Sosman wrote:
>>... snip ...
>>

>> The distinction between strictly conforming and conforming
>>>programs is one that the Standard is pretty much forced to make,
>>>but it has always seemed to me that the Standard's definition
>>>of strict conformance is too restrictive to be as useful as it
>>>should be. When a program like Kenneth Brody's turns out not
>>>to be strictly conforming, I think the baby has been thrown out
>>>with the bath water. But I have no better definition to offer,
>>>so I can't complain very convincingly!

>>
>>I don't think a strictly conforming *program* exists,

>
>
<pedantic>
What about:
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
</pedantic>

Sorry: It returns an implementation-defined form of
"success" to the host environment. Something that goes
from the program to the environment is surely "output,"
hence the program produces implementation-defined output.

;-)

I think we can deal with code that is not strictly conforming within
certain limits. Such as, to take a simple example, a program printing
values from limits.h

Nailing down the "certain limits" is the hard part,
the part for which I at least have nothing constructive
to offer.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the
kinds of material I understand to be embraced
within that shorthand description; and perhaps I
could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But
I know it when I see it, [...]"
-- Justice Potter Stewart

--
Eric.Sosman@sun .com

[CBFalconer]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Keith Thompson wrote:

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.comwrites:
>

.... snip ...

>>
>I don't think a strictly conforming *program* exists, but many
>strictly conforming *routines* do exist. I.E. those routines that
>can be implemented anywhere.

>
The standard doesn't talk about strictly conforming routines, and I
think the phrase "strictly conforming" is so narrowly defined that
we should avoid using it other than in the sense specified in the
standard. The idea of "routines that can be implemented anywhere"
is certainly a useful one, though; perhaps that's the same as
"routines (function?) that can potentially be used in a strictly
conforming program".

For many years I have made a practice of trying to isolate routines
that operate only on memory from something that affects
peripherals, in any language. For example, I may have a routine
that outputs a char, and one that converts a nibble to hex, I
would break this up (in assembly) to:

push acc
shr 4
call hexcvt
call cout
pop acc
call hexcvt
call cout

and use of 'fallthru' can shorted the overall code. This might
give me couthx as:

couthx: call hexcvt
; " " (fall thru)
cout: whatever

reducing the above to:

push acc
shr 4
call couthx
pop acc
; " " (fall thru)
couthx:

You can't apply the fall thru strategies in C, but the rest
applies.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Keith Thompson]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@su n.comwrites:

Flash Gordon wrote On 03/16/07 14:48,:

>CBFalconer wrote, On 15/03/07 21:52:

[...]

>>>I don't think a strictly conforming *program* exists,

>>
>>
><pedantic>
>What about:
>int main(void)
>{
> return 0;
>}
></pedantic>

>
Sorry: It returns an implementation-defined form of
"success" to the host environment. Something that goes
from the program to the environment is surely "output,"
hence the program produces implementation-defined output.
>
;-)

I feel reasonably confident that the comittee did not intend the
concept of "strictly conforming" to be quite *that* useless.

However:

int main(void) { while (1); }

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Flash Gordon]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Keith Thompson wrote, On 16/03/07 21:50:

Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@su n.comwrites:

>Flash Gordon wrote On 03/16/07 14:48,:

>>CBFalconer wrote, On 15/03/07 21:52:

[...]

>>>I don't think a strictly conforming *program* exists,
>>>
>><pedantic>
>>What about:
>>int main(void)
>>{
>> return 0;
>>}
>></pedantic>

> Sorry: It returns an implementation-defined form of
>"success" to the host environment. Something that goes
>from the program to the environment is surely "output,"
>hence the program produces implementation-defined output.
>>
> ;-)

>
I feel reasonably confident that the comittee did not intend the
concept of "strictly conforming" to be quite *that* useless.
>
However:
>
int main(void) { while (1); }

It even still leaves us something to discuss. I prefer
int main(void)
{
for (;;)
continue;
}

:-)
--
Flash Gordon

[CBFalconer]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Flash Gordon wrote:

>
Keith Thompson wrote, On 16/03/07 21:50:
>

.... snip ...

>

>I feel reasonably confident that the comittee did not intend the
>concept of "strictly conforming" to be quite *that* useless.
>>
>However:
>>
>int main(void) { while (1); }

>
It even still leaves us something to discuss. I prefer
int main(void)
{
for (;;)
continue;
}

You both omitted the final "return 0" for C90. :-)

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Keith Thompson]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.comwrites:

Flash Gordon wrote:

>Keith Thompson wrote, On 16/03/07 21:50:
>>

... snip ...

>>

>>I feel reasonably confident that the comittee did not intend the
>>concept of "strictly conforming" to be quite *that* useless.
>>>
>>However:
>>>
>>int main(void) { while (1); }

>>
>It even still leaves us something to discuss. I prefer
>int main(void)
>{
> for (;;)
> continue;
>}

>
You both omitted the final "return 0" for C90. :-)

Which could cause problems as soon as control reaches the closing
brace. Wait here and let me know what happens.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Eric Sosman]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:

Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@su n.comwrites:
>

>>Flash Gordon wrote On 03/16/07 14:48,:
>>

>>>CBFalconer wrote, On 15/03/07 21:52:

>
[...]
>

>>>>I don't think a strictly conforming *program* exists,
>>>
>>>
>>><pedantic>
>>>What about:
>>>int main(void)
>>>{
>> return 0;
>>>}
>>></pedantic>

>>
> Sorry: It returns an implementation-defined form of
>>"success" to the host environment. Something that goes
>>from the program to the environment is surely "output,"
>>hence the program produces implementation-defined output.
>>
> ;-)

>
>
I feel reasonably confident that the comittee did not intend the
concept of "strictly conforming" to be quite *that* useless.
>
However:
>
int main(void) { while (1); }

Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
an implementation that can execute it correctly.

--
Eric.Sosman@sun .com

[pete]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Eric Sosman wrote:

>
Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:

int main(void) { while (1); }

>
Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
an implementation that can execute it correctly.

Here's another one that's strictly conforming
and which some M$ compilers won't compile:

int main(void)
{
int zero = 0;

return zero && (1 / 0);
}

--
pete

[=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZhbiBExLNr?=]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

pete wrote:

Eric Sosman wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:

>

int main(void) { while (1); }

Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
an implementation that can execute it correctly.

>
Here's another one that's strictly conforming
and which some M$ compilers won't compile:
>
int main(void)
{
int zero = 0;
>
return zero && (1 / 0);
}

Here's another one that's strictly conforming and which some G¢¢
(seriously, enough with the "M$") compilers won't compile:

int f(void)
{
int result = 1 / 0;
return result;
}

int main(void)
{
return 0 && f();
}

[Joe Wright]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Harald van Dijk wrote:

pete wrote:

>Eric Sosman wrote:

>>Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:
>>>int main(void) { while (1); }
>> Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
>>an implementation that can execute it correctly.

>Here's another one that's strictly conforming
>and which some M$ compilers won't compile:
>>
>int main(void)
>{
> int zero = 0;
>>
> return zero && (1 / 0);
>}

>
Here's another one that's strictly conforming and which some G¢¢
(seriously, enough with the "M$") compilers won't compile:
>
int f(void)
{
int result = 1 / 0;
return result;
}
>
int main(void)
{
return 0 && f();
}
>

My DJGPP (GNU C 3.1) issues a warning..

d0.c: In function `f':
d0.c:3: warning: division by zero

...and compiles. Running the program gives no error so I'll assume f()
doesn't get called.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZhbiBExLNr?=]

Re: printf(&quot;%d &quot;, INT_MAX);

Joe Wright wrote:

Harald van Dijk wrote:

pete wrote:

Eric Sosman wrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:
>>int main(void) { while (1); }
> Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
>an implementation that can execute it correctly.
Here's another one that's strictly conforming
and which some M$ compilers won't compile:
>
int main(void)
{
int zero = 0;
>
return zero && (1 / 0);
}

Here's another one that's strictly conforming and which some G¢¢
(seriously, enough with the "M$") compilers won't compile:

int f(void)
{
int result = 1 / 0;
return result;
}

int main(void)
{
return 0 && f();
}

My DJGPP (GNU C 3.1) issues a warning..
>
d0.c: In function `f':
d0.c:3: warning: division by zero
>
..and compiles. Running the program gives no error so I'll assume f()
doesn't get called.

Try compiling with the -ansi and -pedantic-errors options (with which
GCC aims to conform to C90 as strictly as allowed). If it still works
then, you're not using a version of GCC affected by that particular
bug.