> From: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Robert Dewar wrote: > >> That may be your position, but it is not the position of the standard, and >> indeed it is not a well-formed position. Why, because the whole point is >> that >> when the behavior is undefined, then the change DOES yield a logically >> equivalent behavior, because undefined means undefined, and all possible >> behaviors are logicaly equivalent to undefined. > > To add to this, I can see how you might feel that even if the standard > allows this behavior it is non-desirable, but I don't even agree with that. > The trouble is if the compiler makes this "work", then C programmers who > don't really know the language end up depending on it, and writing what > is essentially junk non-portable code. It is a GOOD THING if C programmers > are burned by this and learn the language. It is perfectly possible to > write portable programs in C, but you have to know the language to do it, > and knowing the language means knowing what the actual rules are, not just > being familiar with the behavior of a particular compiler.
I too believe I understand your position, however don't believe it's the compiler's job to make life for the programmer harder than it need be when a program may contain an undefined behavior; but agree it would likely always be helpful to for it to point them out when identifiable.
