On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 19:37:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
NULL or any address, as you can change memory protection on a
per
page basis, and have different protection for read write and
execution.
If your semantics require page faults to trap then you should
declare the storage volatile.
You cannot claim that the semantics of your program presumes that
the program is incorrect?
Now, the programming language might require compiled programs to
probe measures of incorrectness at some specific point in time:
before compilation, before output is written to disk or after
completion (with a rollback), but that is the semantics of a
given language, not the semantics of the program. Thus it bears
little relevance to a discussion of whether it is sound to assume
unspeficied values and avoid stores.
Even better, the fault do not have to result in an exception or
other form of termination. in fact, it is demonstrated that the
fault mechanism on x86 is Turing complete.
I don't see what TMs have to do with it. The language compiler
controls generated code.
