如果违反了 "shall / shall not" 要求，那么该要求位于哪个部分（例如语义、约束）是否重要？
If "shall / shall not" requirement is violated, then does it matter in which section (e.g. Semantics, Constraints) such requirement is located?
如果违反了“应/不应”要求，那么该要求位于哪个部分（例如语义、约束）是否重要？
提问原因：本意见：
This is in a Semantics section of the standard, not Constraints, so no diagnostic is required.
是否违反语义部分中的“不得/不得”要求不需要诊断？
语义违规不需要诊断消息，而约束违规则需要。
关于诊断的 C11 standard 第 5.1.1.3p1 节规定如下：
A conforming implementation shall produce at least one diagnostic
message (identified in an implementation-defined manner) if a
preprocessing translation unit or translation unit contains a
violation of any syntax rule or constraint, even if the behavior is
also explicitly specified as undefined or implementation-defined.
Diagnostic messages need not be produced in other circumstances.
该标准仅非常松散地定义了“语义”的实际含义。最重要的是，标准的第 3 术语、定义和符号 中没有术语的定义。
标准 在该部分中定义的是“约束”的含义：
3.8
1 constraint
restriction, either syntactic or semantic, by which the exposition of
language elements is to be interpreted
添加了对“...或语义”的强调。
标准接着说：
4. Conformance
1 In this document, "shall" is to be interpreted as a requirement on an implementation or on a program; conversely, "shall not" is to be interpreted as a prohibition.
2 If a "shall" or "shall not" requirement that appears outside of a constraint or runtime-constraint is violated, the behavior is undefined.
然后我们来到：
5.1.1.3 Diagnostics
1 A conforming implementation shall produce at least one diagnostic message (identified in an implementation-defined manner) if a preprocessing translation unit or translation unit contains a violation of any syntax rule or constraint, even if the behavior is also explicitly specified as undefined or implementation-defined.
添加了对“...或约束”的强调。
根据 3.8，“仅”是 语义限制 并不排除某些东西是 约束。
根据 4. 1)，“应”为要求，“不得”为禁止。
我将两者解释为表示约束。
根据5.1.1.3，不仅违反语法规则，而且违反约束需要诊断，即使（根据4. 2））“[... ] 行为也明确指定为未定义或实现定义。"
不过要注意，以免误会：
我在这里指的是语义在标准中用“应该”/“不应”指定，不是任何语义任何程序。
如果违反了“应/不应”要求，那么该要求位于哪个部分（例如语义、约束）是否重要？
提问原因：本意见：
This is in a Semantics section of the standard, not Constraints, so no diagnostic is required.
是否违反语义部分中的“不得/不得”要求不需要诊断？
语义违规不需要诊断消息，而约束违规则需要。
关于诊断的 C11 standard 第 5.1.1.3p1 节规定如下：
A conforming implementation shall produce at least one diagnostic message (identified in an implementation-defined manner) if a preprocessing translation unit or translation unit contains a violation of any syntax rule or constraint, even if the behavior is also explicitly specified as undefined or implementation-defined. Diagnostic messages need not be produced in other circumstances.
该标准仅非常松散地定义了“语义”的实际含义。最重要的是，标准的第 3 术语、定义和符号 中没有术语的定义。
标准 在该部分中定义的是“约束”的含义：
3.8
1 constraint
restriction, either syntactic or semantic, by which the exposition of language elements is to be interpreted
添加了对“...或语义”的强调。
标准接着说：
4. Conformance
1 In this document, "shall" is to be interpreted as a requirement on an implementation or on a program; conversely, "shall not" is to be interpreted as a prohibition.
2 If a "shall" or "shall not" requirement that appears outside of a constraint or runtime-constraint is violated, the behavior is undefined.
然后我们来到：
5.1.1.3 Diagnostics
1 A conforming implementation shall produce at least one diagnostic message (identified in an implementation-defined manner) if a preprocessing translation unit or translation unit contains a violation of any syntax rule or constraint, even if the behavior is also explicitly specified as undefined or implementation-defined.
添加了对“...或约束”的强调。
根据 3.8，“仅”是 语义限制 并不排除某些东西是 约束。
根据 4. 1)，“应”为要求，“不得”为禁止。
我将两者解释为表示约束。
根据5.1.1.3，不仅违反语法规则，而且违反约束需要诊断，即使（根据4. 2））“[... ] 行为也明确指定为未定义或实现定义。"
不过要注意，以免误会：
我在这里指的是语义在标准中用“应该”/“不应”指定，不是任何语义任何程序。