"for (int i=param; i < param + 16; i++) does not have a guaranteed loop count in the presence of undefined behavior" is true, but it's equally true that the C standard is quite clear that undefined behavior can be ignored, so we can validly treat "for (int i=param; i < param + 16; i++)" as if it were guaranteed to loop 16 times in all cases.
No, the C standard doesn't say that "undefined behavior can be ignored" (which would mean what, making it defined?).
It says, "NOTE Possible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, ...".
It doesn't say that the behavior can be ignored. It says that the undefinedness can be ignored. The implementation doesn't have to take notice of the fact that the behavior is undefined.
Let's take a simpler example:
printf("%d\n", INT_MAX + 1);
The behavior is undefined. The standard does not guarantee anything about it. A conforming implementation can reject it at compile time, or it can generate code that crashes, or it can generate code that emits an ADD instruction and print whatever the hardware returns, or it can play roge at compile time. (The traditional joke is that can make demons fly out of your nose. Of course it can't, but an implementation that did so would be physically impossible, not non-conforming.)
An implementation might define the behavior, but it's still "undefined behavior" as that term is defined by the ISO C standard.
"undefined behavior can be ignored" (meaning: the case where this could overflow need not be considered and can be treated as though it does not exist) vs "The implementation doesn't have to take notice of the fact that the behavior is undefined" strikes me as a distinction without a difference given that we land in exactly the same spot: the standard allows us to treat "for (int i=param; i < param + 16; i++)" as if it were guaranteed to loop 16 times in all cases.
> An implementation might define the behavior, but it's still "undefined behavior" as that term is defined by the ISO C standard.
The point where we seem to disagree (and the pedantry here is getting tiresome so I don't know that there's any value in continuing to go back and forth of on it) is that yes, it's undefined behavior by the ISO C standard. BUT, the ISO C standard also defines the allowable interpretations of and responses to undefined behaviour. Those responses don't exist "outside" the standard – they flow directly from it.
So it's simultaneously true that the standard does not define it and that the standard gives us a framework in which to give its undefinedness some treatment and response, even if that response is "launch angband" or, in this case, "act as if it loops 16 times in all cases".
Of course an implementation can do anything it likes, including defining the behavior. That's one of the infinitely many ways of handling it -- precisely because it's undefined behavior.
I'm not using "undefined behavior" as the English two-word phrase. I'm using the technical term as it's defined by the ISO C standard. "The construct has undefined behavior" and "this implementation defines the behavior of the construct" are not contradictory statements.
And "ignoring the situation completely" does not imply any particular behavior. You seemed to be suggesting that "ignoring the situation completely" would result in the loop iterating exactly 16 tyimes.
> Of course an implementation can do anything it likes, including defining the behavior. That's one of the infinitely many ways of handling it -- precisely because it's undefined behavior.
An implementation can do whatever it likes within the proscribed bounds the standard provides for reacting to "undefined behavior", and conversely whatever the implementation chooses to do within those bounds is consistent with the standard.
Which, again, is the entire point of this: "the loop iterates exactly 16 times" is a standards-conforming interpretation of the code in question. There's nothing outside the standard or non-standard about that. That is, in fact, exactly what the standard says that it is allowed to mean.
> I'm not using "undefined behavior" as the English two-word phrase. I'm using the technical term as it's defined by the ISO C standard.
So am I. Unlike you, I'm merely taking into account the part of the standard that says "NOTE: Possible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results..." and acknowledging that things that do so are standards-conforming.
> You seemed to be suggesting that "ignoring the situation completely" would result in the loop iterating exactly 16 tyimes.
I'm merely reiterating what the standard says: that the case in which the loop guard overflows can be ignored, allowing an implementation to conclude that the loop iterates exactly sixteen times in all scenarios it is required to consider.
All you seem to be doing here is reiterating, over and over again, "the standard says the behavior of the loop is undefined" to argue that the loop has no meaning, while ignoring that a different page of the same standard actual gives an allowable range of meanings to what it means for "behavior to be undefined", and that therefore anyone of those meanings is, in fact, precisely within the bounds of the standard.
We can validly say that the standard says "for (int i=param; i < param + 16; i++)" means "iterate 16 times always". We can validly say that the standard says "for (int i=param; i < param + 16; i++)" means "launch angband when param + 16 exceeds MAX_INT". Both are true statements.
> the standard allows us to treat "for (int i=param; i < param + 16; i++)" as if it were guaranteed to loop 16 times in all cases.
The standard allows this, but the standard also allows iterating less than 16 times, or turning it into an infinite loop, or doing things that a programmer can’t actually do intentionally inside the language’s rules. Undefined means “nothing is defined.” It doesn’t mean “nothing is defined, but in an intuitive way.”
