Subj : Re: Requirements imposed for non-strictly-conforming programs To : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c From : David Hopwood Date : Sat Feb 19 2005 07:11 am Douglas A. Gwyn wrote: > David Hopwood wrote: >>David Schwartz wrote: >>>"David Hopwood" wrote: >>> >>>>("A program that is correct in all other aspects, operating on correct >>>>data, containing unspecified behavior shall be a correct program and act >>>>in accordance with 5.1.2.3.") >>> >>> Sure, if it's "correct in all other aspects". This simply provides a >>>definition of what it means for a program to be "correct in all other >>>aspects". >> >>No, there is no definition of what "correct" means. The point, though, >>is that whatever "correct" means, this clause imposes requirements on >>implementations for code that is not strictly conforming. > > Actually it doesn't have any normative effect. The specs apply > to all programs and all conforming implementations anyway; if a > program violates a syntactic rule or constraint then a diagnostic > is required (and the program can be rejected); otherwise, unless > undefined behavior is invoked an otherwise conforming program's > operation is as the specs say it is. It seems that you're not disputing the main point that C99 imposes requirements for programs that are not strictly conforming (and that POSIX imposes requirements for programs that are not Strictly Conforming POSIX Applications). Why not just say so? -- David Hopwood .