Paul Schlie wrote:
- yes, and thereby inconsistent with reality, and thereby wrong. (as may and may not are equivalent possibilities)
The standard is the only reality here. If you cannot deduce semantic behavior from the semantic model of the standard, then you cannot deduce it. You are not allowed to augment the standard with reasoning based on what you think is consistent with the reality of chips and compilers. A test is only valid if it has fully defined behavior according to the standard. An implementation is only invalid if there is a valid test that fails. This does not preclude the possibility of having a given C compiler define behavior in an undefined situation, but I don't see any support for trying to define the effect of referencing uninitialized variables. THe signed overflow situation is indeed different, but if you try to make a general argument that all undefined behavior should be defined in gcc, then you have no hope of any consensual agreement to such a proposal, or even a significant minority agreement.
