 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Am 21.10.2015 um 19:13 schröbte Viacheslav Usov:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net> wrote:"Real C" for the scope of this thread is defined (by me) as code compiled by a C compiler in contrast to an `extern "C"` function that is compiled by a C++ compiler. E.g. gcc by default does "The Right Thing" (`-fexceptions`) for C++ code, but not for C code. That's why I made the distinction. In theory it isn't needed, because the behavior is undefined by the C++ and C standards in both cases.That is again not true. "Undefined behaviour" has a very specific meaning in the current C++ standard (clause 1.3.24) and the passage quoted earlier does not use that term.
Clause 1.3.24 says:
undefined behavior behavior for which this International Standard imposes no requirements [ Note: Undefined behavior may be expected when this International Standard omits any explicit definition of behavior or when a program uses an erroneous construct or erroneous data. [...] ]
but I only have the draft standard, maybe they changed it for the final version.
Your definition of "Real C" misses the point, because this area, as stated earlier, is implementation specific.
And I gave one popular specific implementation where that definition of "Real C" is relevant.
It is sufficient for me that my implementation specifies a behaviour that is suitable for my use. Whatever behaviour observed with your implementation is immaterial to me.
You suggested "that this be incorporated into Lua's official source." So this concerns more than just your implementation. That's the main reason why I replied in the first place.
Cheers, V.
Philipp