Subj : Re: Non-strictly-conforming and unspecified versus undefined behavior
To   : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c
From : David Schwartz
Date : Sat Feb 19 2005 03:03 pm


"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message 
news:4217C263.149DDA9F@web.de...

> David Schwartz wrote:
> [...]
>> is logically impossible for a standard to impose requirements on programs
>> that invoke undefined behavior.

> The silly thing you seem to like so much can be accomplished with
> rvalues, not lvalues as __thread (thread storage duration) extension
> does.

    Honestly, I cannot tell what you're talking about.

    Also, the implication that a person likes the implementation 
possibilities he warns about is bogus. If I said you shouldn't assume 'char' 
is signed by default, would you argue that I somehow prefer unsigned 
characters over signed ones?

    DS

.