Barry Schwarz wrote On 10/19/07 13:27,:
> 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.

Where is it written that "the implementation" can
have no time-varying components? The behavior of

puts( __TIME__ );

.... clearly changes as the module is compiled and recompiled,
and although __TIME__ itself is not implementation-defined
its value certainly is. Can't the rest of the implementation
have at least this much freedom?

--
Eric.Sosman@sun.com