I suppose it's less the phrase itself than the concept. What would be a way to say "integer overflow behaviour may reflect the underlying machine, but must be sensible", rigorously enough for the C standard? We've established that "undefined behaviour" is too broad, and "implementation-defined value" is too narrow.
Why "must be sensible"? Why not just say "signed integer overflow is implementation-defined" and in a footnote say "for example, it may wrap, trap, saturate, or do anything else documented by your implementation"?
> Why "must be sensible"? Why not just say "signed integer overflow is implementation-defined" and in a footnote say "for example, it may wrap, trap, saturate, or do anything else documented by your implementation"?
I don't think that actually defines anything - I don't think GCC would interpret that as anything other than undefined behaviour.
