--The functional difference would be: A program with implementation-defined semantics is always well-formed and the behavior of the implementation must be documented.
From: SG5 <sg5-bounces@lists.isocpp.org> On Behalf Of Victor Luchangco via SG5
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 6:54 PM
To: sg5@lists.isocpp.org
Cc: Victor Luchangco <victor.luchangco.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [SG5] Points raised on EWG reflector
What is the functional difference between "undefined behavior" (I assume this is what UB stands for) and "implementation defined"?
Presumably, a particular implementation can implement "undefined behavior" however it likes, and in particular, it can do so in a predictable
and understandable way. Does saying that behavior is implementation-defined create an onus on implementors to actually give well-defined
semantics to a feature? (I agree that we do not want to create any such onus.)
SG5 mailing list
SG5@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg5