Subj : Re: Non-strictly-conforming and unspecified versus undefined behavior
To   : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c
From : David Schwartz
Date : Tue Feb 22 2005 01:33 pm


"James Kuyper" <kuyper@saicmodis.com> wrote in message 
news:421B9EE2.2050507@saicmodis.com...

> David Schwartz wrote:

>>     Your definition of a "strictly conforming program" would then not 
>> include any program that uses anything from POSIX.

> It's not "his" definition, it's the definition contained in the C 
> standard, and is therefore the definition that applies by default in 
> comp.std.c.

    It is his choice to use the definition from the C standard, there are 
other definitions in other standards. I agree that it applies "by default", 
but certainly a crosspost to comp.programming.threads and direct references 
to POSIX threads should be sufficient to override the default given that the 
POSIX standard defines "strictly conforming" a different way. Also, the term 
"strictly conforming" was used in the thread long before it was crossposted 
to comp.std.c; how the comp.std.c defaults could retroactively apply to a 
thread and change the meanings of the words in it is a mystery.

> If a message is going to be cross-posted to comp.std.c, it should be 
> written to use C jargon only when the C standard meaning is the intended 
> meaning of that jargon.
> You're correct; a program that makes any non-trivial use of POSIX is not a 
> strictly conforming C program.

    There's no way to know what newsgroups replies to your posts are going 
to be cross-posted to.

[snip]

    I agree with the rest of your post.

    DS

.