Yes. And that would make sense.<p>They might not insist on exactly this, but they already leave this sort of possibility open by suggesting that undefined behaviour could result in the program behaving &quot;in a documented manner characteristic of the environment&quot;.<p>If the standard writers&#x27; hands were tied by having to cater for every system they&#x27;d ever heard of, even the stupid ones where shifting by 32 (or whatever) results in rand() (or whatever) - implementers&#x27; hands are not! They have only one system to think about!<p>If that system happens to be one of the stupid ones - well, anybody working on it will have exactly the same problem.<p>But if it isn&#x27;t one of the stupid ones - why do they insist that their users should behave as if it is?