Hello,
See here:
www.open-std.org/.../C99RationaleV5.10.pdf
Is it possible that "Jack Sprat", the staunch defender of the C standard as the ultimate reference when writing programs, missed the following statement?
C code can be non-portable. Although it strove to give programmers the opportunity to write truly portable programs, the C89 Committee did not want to force programmers into writing portably, to preclude the use of C as a “high-level assembler”: the ability to write machine- 35 specific code is one of the strengths of C. It is this principle which largely motivates drawing the distinction between strictly conforming program and conforming program (§4).
this is precisely what Per Westermark has been saying. Exactly what Erik Malund has been saying. Remember: Jack Sprat claims often that writing a program that complies with the C standard is a GUARANTEE for its correct functioning.
["what compiler? and what hardware?"
Irrelevant.
The Standard (specify your choice of version) clearly states what things are implementation dependent, and what are undefined.
"bugs in the standard / compilers / hardware"
Well, yes - that will obviously mess things up!]
so "irrelevant" things will obviously mess things up.
how do you define "irrelevant" again?
no answer needed, btw.
Indeed.
It has been said that an Engineer is someone who can make for £1 what any fool could make for £10.
"It has been said that an Engineer is someone who can make for £1 what any fool could make for £10."
that's just because engineers are generally poor so they have to be frugal.