Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!ox-prg!msc2.comlab!imc From: imc@prg.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Heroic failures (q = q++) Message-ID: <946.imc@uk.ac.ox.prg> Date: 26 Jun 91 10:59:02 GMT References: <902@adimail.UUCP> <7079@gara.une.oz.au> <15520@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1991Jun25.151408.1024@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <4210@ksr.com> Sender: news@prg.ox.ac.uk Reply-To: imc@prg.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier) Organization: Oxford University Computing Laboratory, UK Lines: 27 X-Local-Date: Wednesday, 26th June 1991 at 12:02pm BST I have noticed quite a lot of talk recently about things like this... In article <4210@ksr.com>, jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) wrote: >Note that because it is *undefined*, the compiler was perfectly at >liberty to generate > q := 666 ; special marker for evil constructs >or > JSR _cpu$detonate >or any other damned thing it liked. Now I was just wondering, is there any statement in the ANSI standard which prohibits self-destruction of the CPU or any similar behaviour which might be physically dangerous or expensive? If not, do you think such limits would be reasonable to include? I mean, I suppose it might be quite easy to type: q = q-- instead of what you really meant: q = q-p and if your computer were to blow up unexpectedly you might get rather upset (if you were still alive to be upset, that is). Oh yes, :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Ian Collier Ian.Collier@prg.ox.ac.uk | imc@ecs.ox.ac.uk