Rvalue of struct type

[Guest]

I see your point. Anything unspecified by omission, though not
explicitly mentioned as undefined behaviour, must be taken as such,
since the Standard, by failing to elaborate, imposes no requirement on
the implementation, one way or the other.

Anything not explicitly defined must be taken as undefined for the
simple reason that the standard states so.

4p2:
If a "shall" or "shall not" requirement that appears outside of a
constraint is violated, the behavior is undefined. Undefined behavior
is otherwise indicated in this International Standard by the words
"undefined behavior" or by the omission of any explicit definition of
behavior. There is no difference in emphasis among these three; they
all describe "behavior that is undefined".

 

[santosh]

Anything not explicitly defined must be taken as undefined for the
simple reason that the standard states so.

4p2:
If a "shall" or "shall not" requirement that appears outside of a
constraint is violated, the behavior is undefined. Undefined behavior
is otherwise indicated in this International Standard by the words
"undefined behavior" or by the omission of any explicit definition of
behavior. There is no difference in emphasis among these three; they
all describe "behavior that is undefined".

Thanks for the conformation.

 

[Beej Jorgensen]

I.e. it can make daemons fly out of your nose.

Now, that's just plain unsafe.

-Beej

 

[Keith Thompson]

Can you clarify that? Every newsreader I've ever looked at
has had the option to subscribe to newsgroups.

"Subscribing" to a newsgroup is not any kind of interaction between
you and the newsgroup, or even your local server. It merely records
the name of the group somehow in your local client. (If you're using
Google Groups, it's likely to be a bit different, but in that case you
can think of the Google Groups server as analogous to a newsreading
client, sort of.)

 

[Yevgen Muntyan]

"Subscribing" to a newsgroup is not any kind of interaction between
you and the newsgroup, or even your local server. It merely records
the name of the group somehow in your local client. (If you're using
Google Groups, it's likely to be a bit different, but in that case you
can think of the Google Groups server as analogous to a newsreading
client, sort of.)

The newsgroup doesn't know about subscription, of course, but
the OP said he "subscribed and gave his full name for subscription...
So dont get confused by the new name in the recent post!!".
OP just wanted to say "SRR" and "Rajesh S R" is the same person,
and got "there is no such thing as ...". What the heck, of course
there is. Who said it should/does affect the newsgroup in any way?

Yevgen

 

[Rajesh S R]

Rajesh S R wrote, On 13/03/07 13:09:



The C standards explicitly state that if the behaviour is not defined by
the standard then it is undefined behaviour exactly the same as if it
explicitly said it was undefined behaviour.

ISO is the international standard body, ANSI is mainly relevant to the
USA and the original publication of the standard in 1989 before ISO
adopted it.

Thanks for the reply for my question about the behavior of things not
stated in standards.

Can You give reply to the following question too?
*Since ISO standard says nothing about
rvalue type array, am I invoking undefined behavior, and *not*
implementation-defined behavior?*

Does the case of accessing an Rvalue array which may or may not be
converted to pointer type as I mentioned earlier in this thread, a UB,
just because C99 does'nt say anything about Rvalue arrays?

But C standard says that a variable of array type is converted to
pointer type.
Isn't it applicable for Rvalue array type, just because nothing is
explicitly said about Rvalue array type?

I know that I'm too repetitious as I ask same question again and again
in different posts, But I want a response in terms of C99 standards
and I'm curious to know why an rvalue array type is converted to
pointer type in the expression
f().m[0]
but it isn't in the expression
f().m + 0

Is'nt it a violation of C99 which states any array type is converted
to pointer type?
Doesn't the interpretation of the word 'array type' include both
Lvalue and Rvalue types?

Please see the previous posts by others and me and do respond.

Sorry, if you think that, I am too repetitious in posing same question
again and again.
But I think I hadn't got the answer to my question.

Thanks in advance for the reply.