On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:35:44 GMT, "James Kuyper Jr."
<jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

>Barry Schwarz wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:44:02 +0000 (UTC), $)CHarald van D)&k
>> <truedfx@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>> Undefined behaviour is inherently implementation dependent.
>>>
>> Implementation dependent implies that the behavior will be consistent
>> on a particular implementation (the same today as it was yesterday).
>
>Citation, please?
>
>"Implementation-dependent behavior" isn't a term defined in the C
>standard. It's normal English meaning is only that the behavior depends
>upon which implementation you use, which is certainly true for undefined
>behavior. I don't see any implication that the behavior has to be
>consistent.

If the behavior is implementation-dependent (I agree with your normal
meaning), and if the implementation doesn't changed, it is reasonable
to conclude that the behavior won't either. If it does, then it
depends on something other (or something more) than the
implementation. Undefined behavior offers no such assurances.


Remove del for email