https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248719 ------- Comment #6 from jmatejek@novell.com 2007-03-01 07:27 MST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
I disagree - the code is broken because it fails to conform to ISO C. K&R 2, section 7.8.5 page 167 in my copy.
I'll have to argue with this. K&R is absolutely irrelevant in this case, Python is written in ANSI C, and it's perfectly valid ANSI C. What you're referring to is the fact that the code relies on "undefined" behavior. But as stated in the mentioned thread*, this is guaranteed to work by the POSIX norm, and, more importantly, design of current hardware. * http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-November/069897.html
I don't understand how providing "an actual bug" is a pre-condition on getting this fixed.
That is very simple, really. Something that looks as a bug on first sight might just as well be a clever (if hackish) design, and fixing the "obvious bug" in code can have disastrous consequences. Providing an actual bug, i.e. deviation from program's expected behavior, is a simple proof that a problem really exists.
You make it sound like code is only broken when it crashes. I'm sure that is not true.
The code is broken when it fails to do what it's supposed to do. And that is not the case. Of course we might argue about "beauty" and "elegance" and "proper programming techniques", but that is not the point here.
Thanks for the link. I read it - it confirms what I suspected. If I understand correctly, the code is broken, according to the international standards.
To my best knowledge, there are no standards on what an ANSI C program should do, as long as it's written in proper ANSI C (which it apparently is). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.