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 02:10 pm


"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message 
news:lnzmxw45e3.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...

>>     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.
>
> Sigh.
>
> As a regular reader of comp.std.c, I naturally assumed that "strictly
> conforming" referred to the term as defined in the C standard.  I had
> no idea, prior to this discussion, that the POSIX standard also uses
> the term "strictly conforming" -- and there's no particular reason I
> should have known that.

    Certainly. All the mistakes made were natural ones. There have been many 
misunderstandings in this thread.

> When someone posted in comp.std.c using the
> phrase "strictly conforming" in an odd way, it was easier to assume
> that he was using it incorrectly than that it was a well-defined term
> from another standard (we've seen far worse nonsense than that).
> Perhaps if I had spent 5 minutes thinking about it and/or doing some
> research, I might have realized what was going on, but I don't spend 5
> minutes on each Usenet article.

    Right, I made that same mistake, not noticing the conflict earlier.

> So my assumption was incorrect.  Now I know better, as do the other
> comp.std.c regulars, many of whom undoubtedly made the same (quite
> reasonable, IMHO) assumption.
>
> Now that everyone understands what's going on, I suggest that further
> arguments about who should have assumed what would be unproductive
> (and not particularly interesting).

    The only reason I replied to the previous post was because it claimed 
that the interpretations were valid rather than erroneous. Certainly human 
beings make mistakes and this was a particularly easy mistake to make. 
Hopefully, we all know a little bit more about the difference between how C 
defines "strictly conforming" and how POSIX does and the reasons for the 
difference. So some good has come of it. ;)

    DS

.