On 10/7/2014 2:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/07/2014 10:09 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
What defined behavior would you suggest would be possible after an
overflow bug is detected?
At the language level, there are many possibilities. Just look at what type safe
languages do. It is not true that this must lead to UB by a "definition"
commonly agreed upon by participants in this thread.
And even in a safe language, how would you know that a bug in the runtime didn't
lead to corruption which put your program into the unknown state?
Your assertion rests on some assumptions:
1. the "safe" language doesn't have bugs in its proof or specification
2. the "safe" language doesn't have bugs in its implementation
3. that it is knowable what caused a bug without ever having debugged it
4. that program state couldn't have been corrupted due to hardware failures
5. that it's possible to write a perfect system
all of which are false.
I.e. it is not possible to define the state of a program after it has entered an
unknown state that was defined to never happen.
