3 ms·
If you actually read the standard, you will find out that this turns out not to be the case. The C standard is (or maybe was, quite possible that the compiler
by mpweiher 5y ago
If you actually read the standard, you will find out that this turns out not to be the case.
The C standard is (or maybe was, quite possible that the compiler mafia removed that bit as well) very clear that standards compliance is not sufficient for a compiler to be "fit for purpose".
- josephcsible 5y agoI have read the standard, and I don't believe your comment to be true. Can you point out the exact section that backs up what you're saying? (And if you say the "compiler mafia" did remove it, then can you point to an older version that says it?)
- mpweiher 5y agoAlas, I can no longer find it. :-( However, the rationale is quite clear on most of this. http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/rationale/a.html http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/rationale/a.html
- int_19h 5y agoI didn't say it's the contract; I said it's a contract.
- CRConrad 5y agoSo the contract includes a "this contract does not guarantee that the product is fit for purpose" clause. So what? Many contracts do that; i.e. it's a fairly typical trait of contracts.
- mpweiher 5y agoBut they really meant it. See also the different conformance levels and the rationale given for them. http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/rationale/a.html http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/rationale/a.html