4 ms·

I think you’re misinterpreting. Maybe it’s clearer if we elide the relative subclause: undefined behavior behavior … for which this International Standard

by User23 3y ago

I think you’re misinterpreting. Maybe it’s clearer if we elide the relative subclause: undefined behavior behavior … for which this International Standard imposes no requirements That is an obvious definition of what is undefined behavior. It’s not giving license to do whatever. That said the ship has sailed and what implementors do obviously matters more than what the standard says.

iso8859-1 3y ago
If there are no requirements on what it's doing, how is that not a license to do whatever? There is not even a requirement that a theoretical program that contains e.g. only preceding code, would still maintain any invariants. So I don't see what an instance of "whatever" that violates "no requirements" would look like.
- User23 3y ago
  Read with an either an atypical or malicious degree of literalism the standard supports ransomwaring your machine and indeed your entire network in the face of undefined behavior. What it actually means is the standard doesn’t require doing the impossible, not that a program error is license to generate malicious code. That’s why it gives a (now formerly) normative list of possible approaches.
  - nlewycky 3y ago
    No maliciousness is required. "1 + 2" produces "3" only because the standard defines it so -- it is therefore required that 1 + 2 produce 3. When the standard does not say what to do, there is no requirement. You said "it's not a license to do whatever" which is only true because it isn't a license. The code can still do whatever, because there is no requirement that it do anything other than "whatever". You seem to be arguing from a position that the code has meaning unless somehow UB gets involved, but the reality is that these bits and bytes don't mean anything until the spec tells us what meaning it has.
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      > until the spec tells us what meaning it has. That's a commonly held belief, but wrong. My first C compiler predated the ANSI C standard. Yet the code very much had meaning, just not in terms of the C standard. The C standard defines the minimum a C compiler has to do to be in compliance with the C standard. It is not a complete definition, and this is intentional.
      - nlewycky 3y ago
        > > until the spec tells us what meaning it has. > That's a commonly held belief, but wrong. My first C compiler predated the ANSI C standard. Yet the code very much had meaning, just not in terms of the C standard. Much like /* plain English comments */ have meaning, just not in terms of the C standard. Talking about prestandard C isn't relevant because we're talking about what a standards conforming compiler can do with undefined behaviour per the text of the standard. I do not find your counterexample compelling. > The C standard defines the minimum a C compiler has to do to be in compliance with the C standard. The standard does not define what a compiler has to do. Instead, it defines the C abstract machine as well as syntax attached to behaviour in terms of that abstract machine. When a program which is restricted to that syntax is executed, it must have the effects (upon the C abstract machine*) as specified in the standard. Sometimes the standard doesn't specify anything for a given syntax in a given abstract machine state, and sometimes the standard explicitly specifies that "the behavior is undefined". > It is not a complete definition, and this is intentional. I'm not sure what you mean. Compiler extensions exist (and are generally regarded as a necessary evil), is that what you're referring to? Or are you referring to implementation-defined things (all of which are explicitly called out in the standard)? Or something else? A citation, if you can? * Notably the C language says nothing about the real machine. Supposing you have an I/O port at address 0x9000, accessing "*((char*)0x9000) = 1;" does not need to access memory address 0x9000 at all. Of course, compiler engineers are not silly and implemented it as accessing 0x9000 on the underlying machine. Similarly the standard committee is careful to ensure that the language it defines can be implemented without needed the overhead of a VM or interpreter, though sometimes they get that wrong. (For example, see the issues combining multiple alloca() and C99's "int foo[*];" in the same function.)*

by User23 3y ago

iso8859-1 3y ago

If there are no requirements on what it's doing, how is that not a license to do whatever? There is not even a requirement that a theoretical program that contains e.g. only preceding code, would still maintain any invariants. So I don't see what an instance of "whatever" that violates "no requirements" would look like.

User23 3y ago
Read with an either an atypical or malicious degree of literalism the standard supports ransomwaring your machine and indeed your entire network in the face of undefined behavior. What it actually means is the standard doesn’t require doing the impossible, not that a program error is license to generate malicious code. That’s why it gives a (now formerly) normative list of possible approaches.
- nlewycky 3y ago
  No maliciousness is required. "1 + 2" produces "3" only because the standard defines it so -- it is therefore required that 1 + 2 produce 3. When the standard does not say what to do, there is no requirement. You said "it's not a license to do whatever" which is only true because it isn't a license. The code can still do whatever, because there is no requirement that it do anything other than "whatever". You seem to be arguing from a position that the code has meaning unless somehow UB gets involved, but the reality is that these bits and bytes don't mean anything until the spec tells us what meaning it has.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    > until the spec tells us what meaning it has. That's a commonly held belief, but wrong. My first C compiler predated the ANSI C standard. Yet the code very much had meaning, just not in terms of the C standard. The C standard defines the minimum a C compiler has to do to be in compliance with the C standard. It is not a complete definition, and this is intentional.
    - nlewycky 3y ago
      > > until the spec tells us what meaning it has. > That's a commonly held belief, but wrong. My first C compiler predated the ANSI C standard. Yet the code very much had meaning, just not in terms of the C standard. Much like /* plain English comments */ have meaning, just not in terms of the C standard. Talking about prestandard C isn't relevant because we're talking about what a standards conforming compiler can do with undefined behaviour per the text of the standard. I do not find your counterexample compelling. > The C standard defines the minimum a C compiler has to do to be in compliance with the C standard. The standard does not define what a compiler has to do. Instead, it defines the C abstract machine as well as syntax attached to behaviour in terms of that abstract machine. When a program which is restricted to that syntax is executed, it must have the effects (upon the C abstract machine*) as specified in the standard. Sometimes the standard doesn't specify anything for a given syntax in a given abstract machine state, and sometimes the standard explicitly specifies that "the behavior is undefined". > It is not a complete definition, and this is intentional. I'm not sure what you mean. Compiler extensions exist (and are generally regarded as a necessary evil), is that what you're referring to? Or are you referring to implementation-defined things (all of which are explicitly called out in the standard)? Or something else? A citation, if you can? * Notably the C language says nothing about the real machine. Supposing you have an I/O port at address 0x9000, accessing "*((char*)0x9000) = 1;" does not need to access memory address 0x9000 at all. Of course, compiler engineers are not silly and implemented it as accessing 0x9000 on the underlying machine. Similarly the standard committee is careful to ensure that the language it defines can be implemented without needed the overhead of a VM or interpreter, though sometimes they get that wrong. (For example, see the issues combining multiple alloca() and C99's "int foo[*];" in the same function.)*