<p>The behaviour in SmallTalk relies on the underlying framework which you state is C language and full of undefined behaviour...</p>
<p>Doesn't that make the SmallTalk environment Undefined Behavior as well by inheriting the UB from the C layer it builds on?</p>
<p>Or is that just irrational F.U.D. in promotion of SmallTalk by detraction against C?</p>
<p>*both* languages are capable and leave defining behavior to the authoring programmer/coder/software-developer/...</p>
<p>Or at least that is my own understanding...</p>
<p>Belxjander </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 4, 2013 5:32 PM, "Camillo Bruni" <<a href="mailto:camillobruni@gmail.com">camillobruni@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
On 2013-02-04, at 08:49, Igor Stasenko <<a href="mailto:siguctua@gmail.com">siguctua@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> On 28 January 2013 23:07, Nicolas Cellier<br>
> <<a href="mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com">nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> 2013/1/28 Ken Causey <<a href="mailto:ken@kencausey.com">ken@kencausey.com</a>>:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Eliot said:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hmmm. Sorry to put you to this but what happens when you run the r2669,<br>
>>>> r2672 and r2673 VMs from <a href="http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/" target="_blank">http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/</a>? If<br>
>>>> these don't crash then it might be something to do with gcc 4.4.x. But<br>
>>>> I'd<br>
>>>> have to take a look, and time is tight right now... But if any of them do<br>
>>>> work could you use them for the interim?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Not a problem and thanks for the reply.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Well I started with 2673 and the tests are still running but it would have<br>
>>> crashed by now if the same problem exists so it's looking like the gcc<br>
>>> version is the issue. I will try earlier gcc versions and report back.<br>
>>><br>
>>> It's a little disheartening that in this day and age we are tickling gcc<br>
>>> issues when the same version of gcc is used to build the kernel and<br>
>>> thousands upon thousands of Debian binaries which (by and large anyway) seem<br>
>>> to be fine.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Ken<br>
>><br>
>> And the answer would be: don't rely on UB (Undefined Behavior)<br>
>> Modern interpretation of the standards is that a compiler has a<br>
>> license to ignore UB in order to perform optimizations... This is<br>
>> because no one should rely on UB.<br>
>> Unfortunately, the underlying C language is full of UB, and the signed<br>
>> arithmetic model is particularly broken...<br>
>><br>
>> I doubt the thousands of packages have been working unchanged...<br>
>> They work with army of programmers maintaining the code and chasing<br>
>> the compiler warnings.<br>
>> As long as we ignore the warnings, we are in danger.<br>
>> As long as we have several hundreds warnings, there is no easy way to<br>
>> analyze their dangerosity...<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I cannot agree more.<br>
<br>
well you mute them, right?</blockquote></div>