Subject: Code 3456345 see before Mar 26 2015

From: Prime Card Status (Amazon) <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 06:39:48 -0700

||||Amazon|||||

Claim Code
Prime Code#23307548 http://www.fairviewamazingoffers.com/7456/ripped/demijohns.html

Hello Krb-wg-archive,

Thank you for recently visiting us. Instant rewards can be clamed today.

Redeem Your Prime Claim Code...

Code: #1563 > (http://www.fairviewamazingoffers.com/7456/ripped/demijohns.html)

Claim rewards before: March 26, 2015
www.amazon/prime-card/cgi/?23307548 (http://www.fairviewamazingoffers.com/7456/ripped/demijohns.html)

Thank you for taking the time to improve your experience. Please visit us again soon.

You make a very valid point.   Segmented Feb 25 at 15:49
4
@caveman The fact that nothing grants fgets permission to change any bytes other than those explicitly specified to be modified means that such an implementation of fgets would fail to conform. In the abstract machine, fgets does not change those bytes, and the value of those bytes does not become indeterminate, unspecified or undefined. Therefore, concrete implementations must maintain the behaviour of leaving those bytes at their last-stored values. If you disagree, then what do you think about the example in my answer? Is that allowed to print "1\n2\n"? If not, why not?   hvd Feb 25 at 19:43
2
That's a good argument, and I agree. I think your comment makes a clearer argument than your answer itself. The main point that I was missing from your answer is that you are considering each byte an object. So the statement that they don't become indeterminate, unspecified, or defined really clarifies what you are saying.   caveman Feb 25 at 20:01
1
This probably not all there is to it as far the standard goes. What defines the last-stored value can be a long story, or else you wouldn't be able to have memory-mapped registers that can be changed by the hardware (which is a common technique on many embedded platforms).   Respawned Fluff Feb 25 at 22:12
2
@RespawnedFluff The standard attaches a footnote to that saying "In the case of a volatile object, the last store need not be explicit in the program.". And that footnote is backed up by the normative text describingvolatile (6.7.3p6). But in the OP's case, there are no volatile objects, so that isn't an issue.   hvd Feb 26 at 6:38

We hope to see you again soon
Amazon

Message not sent form the above brand | From: A.T.R. Mannerd Team  Seventy Augusta-CT North Liberty IA 52317 | Your mail settngs can be found at this location. http://www.fairviewamazingoffers.com/dunnage_abide/pathogenically_197/percussed_blockader.php

Thanks.