教育工具中的哪些内容可以用来证明人们在C/C+中所做的不必要假设+；？ 我想准备一个小的教育工具，这样可以帮助初学者（和中间程序员）认识到和挑战他们在C、C++及其平台上的不必要假设。

示例：

• “整数环绕”
• “每个人都有ASCII码”
• “我可以将函数指针存储在空中*”

我认为一个小测试程序可以在不同的平台上运行，它运行“合理”的假设，根据我们在SO的经验，这些假设通常是由许多没有经验/半经验的主流开发人员提出的，并记录他们在不同机器上的破坏方式

这样做的目的不是为了证明做某件事是“安全的”（这是不可能做到的，测试只有在失败的情况下才能证明任何事情），而是为了向即使是最不理解的人演示最不显眼的表情是如何在不同的机器上崩溃的，如果它有未定义或实现定义的行为。

为此，我想请各位：

• 如何改进这个想法
• 哪些测试是好的，它们应该是什么样子
• 你会在你能得到你的手的平台上运行测试并发布结果，这样我们就有了一个平台数据库，它们有什么不同，为什么允许这种差异

---

以下是测试玩具的当前版本：

#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stddef.h>
int count=0;
int total=0;
void expect(const char *info, const char *expr)
{
    printf("..%s\n   but '%s' is false.\n",info,expr);
    fflush(stdout);
    count++;
}
#define EXPECT(INFO,EXPR) if (total++,!(EXPR)) expect(INFO,#EXPR)

/* stack check..How can I do this better? */
ptrdiff_t check_grow(int k, int *p)
{
    if (p==0) p=&k;
    if (k==0) return &k-p;
    else return check_grow(k-1,p);
}
#define BITS_PER_INT (sizeof(int)*CHAR_BIT)

int bits_per_int=BITS_PER_INT;
int int_max=INT_MAX;
int int_min=INT_MIN;

/* for 21 - left to right */
int ltr_result=0;
unsigned ltr_fun(int k)
{
    ltr_result=ltr_result*10+k;
    return 1;
}

int main()
{
    printf("We like to think that:\n");
    /* characters */
    EXPECT("00 we have ASCII",('A'==65));
    EXPECT("01 A-Z is in a block",('Z'-'A')+1==26);
    EXPECT("02 big letters come before small letters",('A'<'a'));
    EXPECT("03 a char is 8 bits",CHAR_BIT==8);
    EXPECT("04 a char is signed",CHAR_MIN==SCHAR_MIN);

    /* integers */
    EXPECT("05 int has the size of pointers",sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*));
    /* not true for Windows-64 */
    EXPECT("05a long has at least the size of pointers",sizeof(long)>=sizeof(void*));

    EXPECT("06 integers are 2-complement and wrap around",(int_max+1)==(int_min));
    EXPECT("07 integers are 2-complement and *always* wrap around",(INT_MAX+1)==(INT_MIN));
    EXPECT("08 overshifting is okay",(1<<bits_per_int)==0);
    EXPECT("09 overshifting is *always* okay",(1<<BITS_PER_INT)==0);
    {
        int t;
        EXPECT("09a minus shifts backwards",(t=-1,(15<<t)==7));
    }
    /* pointers */
    /* Suggested by jalf */
    EXPECT("10 void* can store function pointers",sizeof(void*)>=sizeof(void(*)()));
    /* execution */
    EXPECT("11 Detecting how the stack grows is easy",check_grow(5,0)!=0);
    EXPECT("12 the stack grows downwards",check_grow(5,0)<0);

    {
        int t;
        /* suggested by jk */
        EXPECT("13 The smallest bits always come first",(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t));
    }
    {
        /* Suggested by S.Lott */
        int a[2]={0,0};
        int i=0;
        EXPECT("14 i++ is strictly left to right",(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1));
    }
    {
        struct {
            char c;
            int i;
        } char_int;
        EXPECT("15 structs are packed",sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int)));
    }
    {
        EXPECT("16 malloc()=NULL means out of memory",(malloc(0)!=NULL));
    }

    /* suggested by David Thornley */
    EXPECT("17 size_t is unsigned int",sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int));
    /* this is true for C99, but not for C90. */
    EXPECT("18 a%b has the same sign as a",((-10%3)==-1) && ((10%-3)==1));

    /* suggested by nos */
    EXPECT("19-1 char<short",sizeof(char)<sizeof(short));
    EXPECT("19-2 short<int",sizeof(short)<sizeof(int));
    EXPECT("19-3 int<long",sizeof(int)<sizeof(long));
    EXPECT("20 ptrdiff_t and size_t have the same size",(sizeof(ptrdiff_t)==sizeof(size_t)));
#if 0
    {
        /* suggested by R. */
        /* this crashed on TC 3.0++, compact. */
        char buf[10];
        EXPECT("21 You can use snprintf to append a string",
               (snprintf(buf,10,"OK"),snprintf(buf,10,"%s!!",buf),strcmp(buf,"OK!!")==0));
    }
#endif

    EXPECT("21 Evaluation is left to right",
           (ltr_fun(1)*ltr_fun(2)*ltr_fun(3)*ltr_fun(4),ltr_result==1234));

    {
    #ifdef __STDC_IEC_559__
    int STDC_IEC_559_is_defined=1;
    #else 
    /* This either means, there is no FP support
     *or* the compiler is not C99 enough to define  __STDC_IEC_559__
     *or* the FP support is not IEEE compliant. */
    int STDC_IEC_559_is_defined=0;
    #endif
    EXPECT("22 floating point is always IEEE",STDC_IEC_559_is_defined);
    }

    printf("From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are %d%% mainstream\n",100-(100*count)/total);
    return 0;
}

#包括
#包括
#包括
#包括
整数计数=0；
int-total=0；
void expect（常量字符*info，常量字符*expr）
{
printf（“…%s\n但“%s”为false。\n”，info，expr）；
fflush（stdout）；
计数++；
}
#定义EXPECT（INFO，EXPR）如果（total++，！（EXPR））EXPECT（INFO，#EXPR）
/*堆栈检查..如何才能做得更好*/
ptrdiff\u t check\u grow（int k，int*p）
{
如果（p==0）p=&k；
如果（k==0）返回&k-p；
否则返回检查增长（k-1，p）；
}
#定义位/INT（sizeof（INT）*字符位）
int bits_per_int=bit_per_int；
int_max=int_max；
int_min=int_min；
/*适用于21-从左到右*/
int ltr_结果=0；
未签名的ltr_fun（整数k）
{
ltr_结果=ltr_结果*10+k；
返回1；
}
int main（）
{
printf（“我们喜欢这样想：\n”）；
/*人物*/
期望（“00我们有ASCII”（'A'==65））；
EXPECT（“01a-Z在一个块中，（'Z'-'A'）+1==26）；
预期（“02个大号字母在小写字母之前”（'A'=sizeof（void*））；
EXPECT（“06个整数是2-补码和换行符”，（int_max+1）==（int_min））；
EXPECT（“07个整数是2-补码，*总是*环绕”，（INT_MAX+1）==（INT_MIN））；
预期（“08超调正常”，（1

sdcc 29.7/ucSim/Z80

We like to think that:
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..19-2 short<int
   but 'sizeof(short)<sizeof(int)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
..25 pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
   but '(diff=&var.int2-&var.int1, &var.int1+diff==&var.int2)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are Stop at 0x0013f3: (106) Invalid instruction 0x00dd

Atmega168有一台16位PC，但代码和数据在不同的地址空间中。较大的Atmega168有一台22位PC


MacOSX 10.6上的gcc 4.2.1，使用-arch ppc编译

We like to think that:
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..13 The smallest bits come always first
   but '(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t)' is false.
..14 i++ is structly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 78% mainstream

我们喜欢这样想：
..09a负向移位
但是（t=-1，（15

浮点表示导致的离散化错误。例如，如果使用标准公式求解二次方程，或使用有限差分近似导数，或使用标准公式计算方差，则由于计算相似数之间的差异，精度将丢失。Gauß算法求解线性系统很糟糕，因为舍入误差累积，因此使用QR或LU分解、Cholesky分解、SVD等。浮点数的加法不是关联的。有非规范值、无穷值和NaN值。a+b− A.≠ b

 P>字符串：字符、代码点和代码单元之间的区别。Unicode是如何在各种操作系统上实现的；Unicode编码。用C++方式打开一个具有任意Unicode文件名的文件是不可能的。
竞争条件，即使没有线程：如果您测试文件是否存在，结果可能在任何时候都无效

错误\u成功
=0

您需要包括人们做出的
++
和
--
假设

a[i++]= i;

例如，在语法上是合法的，但根据太多无法推理的事情产生不同的结果

任何包含
++
（或
--
）和一个多次出现的变量的语句都是一个问题。
非常有趣

我能想到的其他事项可能有助于检查：


函数指针和数据指针是否存在于同一地址空间中？（哈佛体系结构机器中的中断，如DOS小型模式。但不知道如何测试它。）

如果您使用空数据指针并将其转换为适当的整数类型，那么它是否具有数值0？（在一些真正古老的机器上出现中断，请参阅）。与函数指针相同。此外，它们可能是不同的值

将指针递增到其相应存储对象的末尾，然后再递增，是否会产生合理的结果？（我不知道有哪台机器会出现这种情况，但我相信C规范甚至不允许您考虑不指向（a）数组内容或（b）的指针）数组后面的元素或（c）NULL。请参阅。）

使用<和>比较指向不同存储对象的两个指针是否会产生一致的结果？（我可以想象在基于段的异国机器上会出现这种情况；规范禁止这种比较，因此编译器将有权只比较指针的偏移部分，而不是段部分。）


嗯，我再想想

编辑：在优秀的C常见问题解答中添加了一些澄清链接。
其中一些链接无法从C内部轻松测试，因为程序可能会在假设不成立的实现上崩溃


“可以使用指针值变量执行任何操作。它只需要包含
We like to think that:
..05 int has the size of pointers
but 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)' is false.
..08 overshifting is okay
but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..14 i++ is strictly left to right
but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..17 size_t is unsigned int
but 'sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int)' is false.
..21a Function Arguments are evaluated right to left
but '(gobble_args(0,ltr_fun(1),ltr_fun(2),ltr_fun(3),ltr_fun(4)),ltr_result==4321)' is false.
ltr_result is 1234 in this case
..25a pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
but '(diff=&p1-&p2, &p2+diff==&p1)' is false.
..26 sizeof() does not evaluate its arguments
but '(i=10,sizeof(char[((i=20),10)]),i==10)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 72% mainstream

We like to think that:
..05 int has the size of pointers
but 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)' is false.
..08 overshifting is okay
but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..17 size_t is unsigned int
but 'sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int)' is false.
..21a Function Arguments are evaluated right to left
but '(gobble_args(0,ltr_fun(1),ltr_fun(2),ltr_fun(3),ltr_fun(4)),ltr_result==4321)' is false.
ltr_result is 1234 in this case
..25a pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
but '(diff=&p1-&p2, &p2+diff==&p1)' is false.
..26 sizeof() does not evaluate its arguments
but '(i=10,sizeof(char[((i=20),10)]),i==10)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 75% mainstream

We like to think that:
..05 int has the size of pointers
but 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)' is false.
..08 overshifting is okay
but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..14 i++ is strictly left to right
but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..17 size_t is unsigned int
but 'sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int)' is false.
..21a Function Arguments are evaluated right to left
but '(gobble_args(0,ltr_fun(1),ltr_fun(2),ltr_fun(3),ltr_fun(4)),ltr_result==4321)' is false.
ltr_result is 1234 in this case
..26 sizeof() does not evaluate its arguments
but '(i=10,sizeof(char[((i=20),10)]),i==10)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 75% mainstream

We like to think that:
..09a minus shifts backwards
but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..16 malloc()=NULL means out of memory
but '(malloc(0)!=NULL)' is false.
..19-2 short<int
but 'sizeof(short)<sizeof(int)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
..25 pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
but '(diff=&var.int2-&var.int1, &var.int1+diff==&var.int2)' is false.
..25a pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
but '(diff=&p1-&p2, &p2+diff==&p1)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 81% mainstream

We like to think that:
..09a minus shifts backwards
but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..10 void* can store function pointers
but 'sizeof(void*)>=sizeof(void(*)())' is false.
..16 malloc()=NULL means out of memory
but '(malloc(0)!=NULL)' is false.
..19-2 short<int
but 'sizeof(short)<sizeof(int)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
..25 pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
but '(diff=&var.int2-&var.int1, &var.int1+diff==&var.int2)' is false.
..25a pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
but '(diff=&p1-&p2, &p2+diff==&p1)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 78% mainstream

We like to think that:
..05 int has the size of pointers
but 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..16 malloc()=NULL means out of memory
but '(malloc(0)!=NULL)' is false.
..19-2 short<int
but 'sizeof(short)<sizeof(int)' is false.
..20 ptrdiff_t and size_t have the same size
but '(sizeof(ptrdiff_t)==sizeof(size_t))' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
..25 pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
but '(diff=&var.int2-&var.int1, &var.int1+diff==&var.int2)' is false.
..25a pointer arithmetic works outside arrays
but '(diff=&p1-&p2, &p2+diff==&p1)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 75% mainstream

..04 a char is signed
   but 'CHAR_MIN==SCHAR_MIN' is false.
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09 overshifting is *always* okay
   but '(1<<BITS_PER_INT)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..16 malloc()=NULL means out of memory
   but '(malloc(0)!=NULL)' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 71% mainstream

We like to think that:
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..14 i++ is structly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 78% mainstream

We like to think that:
..05 int has the size of pointers
   but 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)' is false.
..05a long has at least the size of pointers
   but 'sizeof(long)>=sizeof(void*)' is false.
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..14 i++ is structly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..17 size_t is unsigned int
   but 'sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int)' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 67% mainstream

..14 i++ is structly left to right
..16 malloc()=NULL means out of memory
..19-2 short<int
..21 Evaluation is left to right
..22 floating point is always IEEE

We like to think that:
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..13 The smallest bits come always first
   but '(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t)' is false.
..14 i++ is structly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 78% mainstream

a[i++]= i;

void noop(void *p); /* A no-op function that the compiler doesn't know to optimize away */
int main () {
    char *p = malloc(1);
    free(p);
    noop(p); /* may crash in implementations that verify pointer accesses */
    noop(p - 42000); /* and if not the previous instruction, maybe this one */
}

#include <stdio.h>
int main () {
    printf("%d\n", INT_MAX+1); /* may crash due to signed integer overflow */
    return 0;
}

#include <stdio.h>
int main () {
    puts("Hello.");
} /* The status code is 7 on many implementations. */

We like to think that:
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09 overshifting is *always* okay
   but '(1<<BITS_PER_INT)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..13 The smallest bits always come first
   but '(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t)' is false.
..14 i++ is strictly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 72% mainstream

We like to think that:
..05 int has the size of pointers
   but 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)' is false.
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09 overshifting is *always* okay
   but '(1<<BITS_PER_INT)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..13 The smallest bits always come first
   but '(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t)' is false.
..14 i++ is strictly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..17 size_t is unsigned int
   but 'sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 68% mainstream

We like to think that:
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..13 The smallest bits always come first
   but '(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t)' is false.
..14 i++ is strictly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 79% mainstream

We like to think that:
..05 int has the size of pointers
   but 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)' is false.
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..13 The smallest bits always come first
   but '(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t)' is false.
..14 i++ is strictly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..17 size_t is unsigned int
   but 'sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 75% mainstream

  int Hello()
  {
       return printf("Hello"); /* printf() returns the number of 
                                  characters successfully printed by it
                               */
  }

  int World()
  {
       return printf("World !");
  }

  int main()
  {

      int a = Hello() + World(); //might print Hello World! or World! Hello
      /**             ^
                      | 
                Functions can be called in either order
      **/
      return 0;
  } 

unsigned char buf[64];

int i = 234;
int *p = &buf[1];
*p = i;
i = *p;

printf("sizeof(int)=%d\n", sizeof(int));

  char *ptr1 = malloc(16);
  char *ptr2 = malloc(16);
  if ((ptrdiff_t)ptr2 - 0x20000 == (ptrdiff_t)ptr1)
      printf("We like to think that unrelated pointers are equality comparable when cast to the appropriate integer, but they're not.");

We like to think that:
..04 a char is signed
   but 'CHAR_MIN==SCHAR_MIN' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..13 The smallest bits come always first
   but '(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t)' is false.
..14 i++ is structly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..16 malloc()=NULL means out of memory
   but '(malloc(0)!=NULL)' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 71% mainstream

struct Foo
{
  int number1_;  //this is public by default


//this is valid in C++:    
private: 
  void Testing1();
  int number2_;

protected:
  void Testing2();
};

Z:\sandbox>cl testtoy.c
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 16.00.30319.01 for 80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

testtoy.c
testtoy.c(54) : warning C4293: '<<' : shift count negative or too big, undefined
 behavior
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 10.00.30319.01
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

/out:testtoy.exe
testtoy.obj

Z:\sandbox>testtoy.exe
We like to think that:
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..14 i++ is structly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
..22 floating point is always IEEE
   but 'STDC_IEC_559_is_defined' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 78% mainstream

We like to think that:
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..14 i++ is structly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..19-3 int<long
   but 'sizeof(int)<sizeof(long)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 84% mainstream

float sum(unsigned int n, ...)
{
    float v = 0;
    va_list ap;
    va_start(ap, n);
    while (n--)
        v += va_arg(ap, float);
    va_end(ap);
    return v;
}

EXPECT("## pow() gives exact results for integer arguments", pow(2, 4) == 16);

We like to think that:
..05 int has the size of pointers
   but 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(void*)' is false.
..08 overshifting is okay
   but '(1<<bits_per_int)==0' is false.
..09a minus shifts backwards
   but '(t=-1,(15<<t)==7)' is false.
..14 i++ is strictly left to right
   but '(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1)' is false.
..15 structs are packed
   but 'sizeof(char_int)==(sizeof(char)+sizeof(int))' is false.
..17 size_t is unsigned int
   but 'sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int)' is false.
From what I can say with my puny test cases, you are 78% mainstream

void print_string(char *st)
{
  char ch;
  while((ch = *st++) != 0)
    putch(ch);  /* Assume this is defined */
}
int main(void)
{
  print_string("Hello");
  return 0;
}
EXPECT("03 a char is 8 bits",CHAR_BIT==8);
EXPECT("04 a char is signed",CHAR_MIN==SCHAR_MIN);

/* not true for Windows-64 */
EXPECT("05a long has at least the size of pointers",sizeof(long)>=sizeof(void*));

EXPECT("08 overshifting is okay",(1<<bits_per_int)==0);
EXPECT("09 overshifting is *always* okay",(1<<BITS_PER_INT)==0);

EXPECT("13 The smallest bits always come first",(t=0x1234,0x34==*(char*)&t));

EXPECT("14 i++ is strictly left to right",(i=0,a[i++]=i,a[0]==1));

/* suggested by David Thornley */
EXPECT("17 size_t is unsigned int",sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(unsigned int));

EXPECT("19-1 char<short",sizeof(char)<sizeof(short));
EXPECT("19-2 short<int",sizeof(short)<sizeof(int));
EXPECT("19-3 int<long",sizeof(int)<sizeof(long));