Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!vela!m.cs.uiuc.edu!uiucdcs!carroll From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Heroic failures (q = q++) Message-ID: <1991Jun26.182944.29983@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 26 Jun 91 18:29:44 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> <946.imc@uk.ac.ox.prg> Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager)) Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude Lines: 22 Nntp-Posting-Host: ash.cs.uiuc.edu In article <946.imc@uk.ac.ox.prg>, imc@prg.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier) writes: > 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 > > 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? If not, do you think > such limits would be reasonable to include? Think of it as Evolution in Action. You have two populations, compilers and their natural prey, programmers. Compilers that have better quality will preserve programmers better, and prosper. Those that eat their programmers too frequently will run out of users and expire. -- Alan M. Carroll <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics Epoch Development Team Urbana Il. "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan