https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #35 from Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root at openwall dot com> --- On 2015-11-20 04:06, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: >> What does the following mean then? >> >> C11, 4p5: >> "A strictly conforming program[...] It [...] shall not exceed any >> minimum implementation limit." > > It's well-known that, if you read the standard literally, strictly > conforming programs may not exist; I've heard about such a POV but I don't think I've seen a compelling reasoning backing it. The definition of a strictly conforming program depends only on requirement of the standard, it's not affected by properties of existing implementations. Take e.g. "shall not exceed any minimum implementation limit" part. It talks about _minimum_ implementation limits which presumably refer to 5.2.4.1. It doesn't say "shall not exceed any implementation limit of any implementation". The fact that gcc limits objects to 2^31-1 bytes on 32-bits platforms is not relevant to a strictly conforming program, it should not exceed a _minimum_ implementation limit of 65535 bytes. Implementation don't define _minimum_ implementation limits. The fact that the standard doesn't limit depth of recursion, as described e.g. in part VI of N1637, doesn't mean there are no strictly conforming program, it means that are no conforming implementations. And it would be nice if existing implementations try to be more conforming and at least try to detect such things. > too much is unspecified or > implementation-defined (including, in general, limits on supported > programs; cf 1#2 "This International Standard 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"). Yes, the standard doesn't describe if a particular processor is suitable for building a conforming implementation. But it doesn't affect which programs are strictly conforming. > In general, you can only reason about C programs conditional on the > program not exceeding any implementation limit. Yeah, in practice, it's not very important whether strictly conforming programs don't exist or conforming implementations:-) But it could affect views on responsibility of implementations to diagnose such bad situations as stack exhaustion.
