From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:10:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:10:12 -0500 Received: from nef.ens.fr ([129.199.96.32]:28678 "EHLO nef.ens.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:09:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:09:37 +0100 From: Thomas Pornin To: andrea@suse.de Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Message-ID: <20010124110937.A9695@bolet.ens.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20010124100240.A4526@athlon.random> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20010124100240.A4526@athlon.random> you write: > I know this code has undefined behaviour at _runtime_. But I thought > you were obliged to allow it to compile. That was my only point. There is no distinction between compilation and runtime in the standard. Actually, C could be interpreted, or a very smart compiler could also think real hard and replace the whole program by an equivalent printf(). Besides, a standard (C99) compiler will reject the 'main' definition. At least, the return type cannot be implicit anymore. --Thomas Pornin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/