From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 16:53:16 -0500, James Kuyper wrote:   
      
   > On 2026-01-04 16:22, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>   
   >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 13:00:02 -0500, James Kuyper wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-01-03 23:52, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > ...   
   >>>> “Undefined behaviour” could also include “performing a valid   
   >>>> memory access”, could it not.   
   >>>   
   >>> Of course. In fact, the single most dangerous thing that can occur   
   >>> when code with undefined behavior is executed is that it does   
   >>> exactly what you incorrectly believe it is required to do. As a   
   >>> result, you fail to be warned of the error in your beliefs.   
   >>   
   >> In this case, it’s not clear what choice you have.   
   >   
   > I may have lost the thread here - which choice are you talking   
   > about?   
      
   What if the entire machine address space is valid? Are C pointer types   
   supposed to add an extra “invalid” value on top of that?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)