Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!raksha!rob
From: rob@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: Heroic failures (q = q++)
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.175914.19665@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
References: <1991Jun25.151408.1024@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <4210@ksr.com> <946.imc@uk.ac.ox.prg>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 17:59:14 GMT

In article <946.imc@uk.ac.ox.prg> imc@prg.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier) writes:
[undefined programs leading to]	JSR _cpu$detonate
>
>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? 

Contrariwise, it is a subtle consequence of a little-known appendix to the
Standard that all undefined behavior must in fact include the exercise of
lethal force on the programmer.  This is known as the Standard review of the
public. 

>If not, do you think such limits would be reasonable to include? 

I believe they're considered a Common Extension.

>Oh yes,
>       :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)

Indeed?

SR
---