Paul Schlie wrote:
As in my mind, the semantics of foo() dictate that it print the value of the storage location which was allocated to the variable "a", where unless "a" is initialized with an explicit value, may be arbitrary. So I've got no problem with arbitrary results or behavior, I just simply believe they are implicitly constrained to the remaining rules of the language, i.e. all side-effects must be expressed upon reaching a sequence point which logically bounds the effects of the evaluation of any expression.
This cannot be formalized, and is not what the standard says. The fact that you believe it is interesting (though I don't think you can write a formal description of what you believe in C standard terms), but we operate by what the standard formally says, not by what one person informally believes.
(where if an undefined behavior it did delete the program being executed it wouldn't resume execution beyond the next sequence point, but if it does, it must continue to abide by the languages rules regardless of the resulting side effects from the preceding behaviors)
Sequence points simply do not have this semantics. If they did, then nearly all useful optimizations would be prohibited. You are essentially positing a model in which the state at every sequence point is not only defined by the standard, but must be reflected in the implementation with no use of as-if semantics. I don't see this as meaningful, and I don't think this can be formalized. I am quite *sure* that it is undesirable.
