home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!ksr!jfw
- From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: strcpy implementation question
- Message-ID: <15276@ksr.com>
- Date: 28 Aug 92 17:19:42 GMT
- References: <PINKAS.92Aug21114508@caraway.intel.com> <PINKAS.92Aug25163006@caraway.intel.com> <14213@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <9224017.23144@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Aug27.153441.29151@watson.ibm.com> <9224103.3422@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Sender: news@ksr.com
- Lines: 13
-
- fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
- >curt@watson.ibm.com (Curt McDowell) writes:
- >>It better work on your machine. "unused" is legally allocated local stack
- >>space, so of course you can reference it. Since the initial contents are
- >>undefined, the result unused[0] is undefined. Fine.
- >Well, NOT fine, if you were trying to write strictly conformant ANSI
- >C code. An ANSI C implementation is well within its rights to dump core
- >if you reference uninitialised memory
-
- Can you provide a reference for this? I thought so too, but when I looked
- through the standard to back up MY reply, I found only the stipulation that
- uninitialized automatics have an "indeterminate" value; I couldn't find
- any permission for that value to cause any trouble.
-