printf("%d", INT_MAX);

[Yevgen Muntyan]

Hey,

It was mentioned elsewhere that printf("%d", INT_MAX);
is implementation-defined. Why? Is it because INT_MAX
value is implementation-defined so output depends
on implementation, or is it something more subtle so
that output of the following is also implementation-defined:

if (INT_MAX == 65535)
printf("%d", INT_MAX);
else
printf("%d", 65535);

Thanks,
Yevgen

[CBFalconer]

Flash Gordon wrote:

>
Keith Thompson wrote, On 16/03/07 21:50:

.... snip ...

>

>I feel reasonably confident that the comittee did not intend the
concept of "strictly conforming" to be quite *that* useless.

However:

int main(void) { while (1); }

It even still leaves us something to discuss. I prefer
int main(void)
{
for (;;)
continue;
}

You both omitted the final "return 0" for C90. :-)

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.comwrites:

Flash Gordon wrote:

>Keith Thompson wrote, On 16/03/07 21:50:

... snip ...

>>

>>I feel reasonably confident that the comittee did not intend the
concept of "strictly conforming" to be quite *that* useless.

However:

int main(void) { while (1); }

It even still leaves us something to discuss. I prefer
int main(void)
{
for (;;)
continue;
}

You both omitted the final "return 0" for C90. :-)

Which could cause problems as soon as control reaches the closing
brace. Wait here and let me know what happens.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Eric Sosman]

Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:

Eric Sosman <Er*********@su n.comwrites:

>>Flash Gordon wrote On 03/16/07 14:48,:

>>>CBFalconer wrote, On 15/03/07 21:52:

[...]

>>>>I don't think a strictly conforming *program* exists,
<pedantic>
What about:
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
</pedantic>

Sorry: It returns an implementation-defined form of
"success" to the host environment. Something that goes
from the program to the environment is surely "output,"
hence the program produces implementation-defined output.

;-)

I feel reasonably confident that the comittee did not intend the
concept of "strictly conforming" to be quite *that* useless.

However:

int main(void) { while (1); }

Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
an implementation that can execute it correctly.

--
Er*********@sun .com

[pete]

Eric Sosman wrote:

>
Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:

int main(void) { while (1); }

Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
an implementation that can execute it correctly.

Here's another one that's strictly conforming
and which some M$ compilers won't compile:

int main(void)
{
int zero = 0;

return zero && (1 / 0);
}

--
pete

[=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZhbiBExLNr?=]

pete wrote:

Eric Sosman wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:

int main(void) { while (1); }

Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
an implementation that can execute it correctly.

Here's another one that's strictly conforming
and which some M$ compilers won't compile:

int main(void)
{
int zero = 0;

return zero && (1 / 0);
}

Here's another one that's strictly conforming and which some G¢¢
(seriously, enough with the "M$") compilers won't compile:

int f(void)
{
int result = 1 / 0;
return result;
}

int main(void)
{
return 0 && f();
}

[Joe Wright]

Harald van Dijk wrote:

pete wrote:

>Eric Sosman wrote:

>>Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:
int main(void) { while (1); }
Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
an implementation that can execute it correctly.

Here's another one that's strictly conforming
and which some M$ compilers won't compile:

int main(void)
{
int zero = 0;

return zero && (1 / 0);
}

Here's another one that's strictly conforming and which some G¢¢
(seriously, enough with the "M$") compilers won't compile:

int f(void)
{
int result = 1 / 0;
return result;
}

int main(void)
{
return 0 && f();
}

My DJGPP (GNU C 3.1) issues a warning..

d0.c: In function `f':
d0.c:3: warning: division by zero

...and compiles. Running the program gives no error so I'll assume f()
doesn't get called.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZhbiBExLNr?=]

Joe Wright wrote:

Harald van Dijk wrote:

pete wrote:

Eric Sosman wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote On 03/16/07 17:50,:
int main(void) { while (1); }
Strictly conforming, I believe. The problem is to find
an implementation that can execute it correctly.
Here's another one that's strictly conforming
and which some M$ compilers won't compile:

int main(void)
{
int zero = 0;

return zero && (1 / 0);
}

Here's another one that's strictly conforming and which some G¢¢
(seriously, enough with the "M$") compilers won't compile:

int f(void)
{
int result = 1 / 0;
return result;
}

int main(void)
{
return 0 && f();
}

My DJGPP (GNU C 3.1) issues a warning..

d0.c: In function `f':
d0.c:3: warning: division by zero

..and compiles. Running the program gives no error so I'll assume f()
doesn't get called.

Try compiling with the -ansi and -pedantic-errors options (with which
GCC aims to conform to C90 as strictly as allowed). If it still works
then, you're not using a version of GCC affected by that particular
bug.