On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 13:59:37 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:

> On 07.11.2019 13:48, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 13:37:21 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> > 
> >> On 07.11.2019 13:17, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:02:39 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> >>> As a side note - the C99 standard contains "derefer" exactly once, in
> >>> a footnote.  Since we have ended up in the darkest corners of
> >>> legalistic exegesis, please, can we avoid using the word that is,
> >>> technically speaking, meaningless as far as this discussion is
> >>> concerned?
> >>
> >> Unary * oprator. C++ specified term "dereferenceable" in the context of
> >> the unary * operator.
> > 
> > This is C code and the C standard is hard enough as it is already.
> > Please, can we put the C++ aside for a moment?
> No. The kernel was already patched (years ago) to build as a valid C++
> software.

"No" what?  This is C code.  If it also happens to be a valid C++
code, good for it, but that is a separate matter.  There's a claim
made about that code that it triggers UB according to the C standard.
That claim can be meaningfully dicussed in that legal(ese) framework

Only after the meaning of the competing claims about that code is
clarified within its "native" framework can we consider C++
interpretation of the same code as a followup and whatever interplay
there is between the standards.

So, if that code is supposed to be valid C code *and* valid C++ code,
then it should be at least valid C code and so, please, can we for now
stick to that part of the "and"?


Reply via email to