Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwm
From: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Out-of-bounds pointers
Message-ID: <1989Oct11.015156.26927@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 89 01:51:56 GMT
References: <1009@mtxinu.UUCP> <12570028@hpclwjm.HP.COM> <868@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <11232@smoke.BRL.MIL> <976@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 23

In article <976@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
<  Prevailing practice means what it says, that before compilers were
<modified to make it illegal such code would work on most machines, such
<as Sun, Vax, PC, Cray, PDP-11, etc. I think that fairly represents at
<least 80% of the machines and users running pre-ANSI C.

I've as yet to run across a compiler that was modifed to match ANSI
that made code with undefined behavior illegal. Issue a warning, yes,
but not an error. I'm even used to them issuing only a warning if ANSI
says the situation in question should be an error.

So, can you provide a code sample with undefined behavior, and the
name of a compiler that used to accept such code, and now considers it
an error?

	<mike


--
When logic and proportion have fallen softly dead,	Mike Meyer
And the white knight is talking backwards,		mwm@berkeley.edu
And the red queen's off her head,			ucbvax!mwm
Remember what the dormouse said.			mwm@ucbjade.BITNET