[Vm-dev] Re: I need help building Cog on 64bit Linux (new Squeak server)

[Jeremy Kajikawa]

The behaviour in SmallTalk relies on the underlying framework which you
state is C language and full of undefined behaviour...

Doesn't that make the SmallTalk environment Undefined Behavior as well by
inheriting the UB from the C layer it builds on?

Or is that just irrational F.U.D. in promotion of SmallTalk by detraction
against C?

*both* languages are capable and leave defining behavior to the authoring
programmer/coder/software-developer/...

Or at least that is my own understanding...

Belxjander
On Feb 4, 2013 5:32 PM, "Camillo Bruni" <camillobruni at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 2013-02-04, at 08:49, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 28 January 2013 23:07, Nicolas Cellier
> > <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2013/1/28 Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Eliot said:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmm.  Sorry to put you to this but what happens when you run the
> r2669,
> >>>> r2672 and r2673 VMs from http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/?
> If
> >>>> these don't crash then it might be something to do with gcc 4.4.x.
>  But
> >>>> I'd
> >>>> have to take a look, and time is tight right now...  But if any of
> them do
> >>>> work could you use them for the interim?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Not a problem and thanks for the reply.
> >>>
> >>> Well I started with 2673 and the tests are still running but it would
> have
> >>> crashed by now if the same problem exists so it's looking like the gcc
> >>> version is the issue.  I will try earlier gcc versions and report back.
> >>>
> >>> It's a little disheartening that in this day and age we are tickling
> gcc
> >>> issues when the same version of gcc is used to build the kernel and
> >>> thousands upon thousands of Debian binaries which (by and large
> anyway) seem
> >>> to be fine.
> >>>
> >>> Ken
> >>
> >> And the answer would be: don't rely on UB (Undefined Behavior)
> >> Modern interpretation of the standards is that a compiler has a
> >> license to ignore UB in order to perform optimizations... This is
> >> because no one should rely on UB.
> >> Unfortunately, the underlying C language is full of UB, and the signed
> >> arithmetic model is particularly broken...
> >>
> >> I doubt the thousands of packages have been working unchanged...
> >> They work with army of programmers maintaining the code and chasing
> >> the compiler warnings.
> >> As long as we ignore the warnings, we are in danger.
> >> As long as we have several hundreds warnings, there is no easy way to
> >> analyze their dangerosity...
> >>
> >
> > I cannot agree more.
>
> well you mute them, right?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20130204/11d7cbba/attachment-0001.htm