Can code that is valid in both C and C++ produce different behavior when compiled in each language?

C and C++ have many differences, and not all valid C code is valid C++ code.
(By "valid" I mean standard code with defined behavior, i.e. not implementation-specific/undefined/etc.)

Is there any scenario in which a piece of code valid in both C and C++ would produce different behavior when compiled with a standard compiler in each language?

To make it a reasonable/useful comparison (I'm trying to learn something practically useful, not to try to find obvious loopholes in the question), let's assume:

• Nothing preprocessor-related (which means no hacks with #ifdef __cplusplus, pragmas, etc.)
• Anything implementation-defined is the same in both languages (e.g. numeric limits, etc.)
• We're comparing reasonably recent versions of each standard (e.g. say, C++98 and C90 or later)
  If the versions matter, then please mention which versions of each produce different behavior.

Here is an example that takes advantage of the difference between function calls and object declarations in C and C++, as well as the fact that C90 allows the calling of undeclared functions:

#include <stdio.h>

struct f { int x; };

int main() {
    f();
}

int f() {
    return printf("hello");
}

In C++ this will print nothing because a temporary f is created and destroyed, but in C90 it will print hello because functions can be called without having been declared.

In case you were wondering about the name f being used twice, the C and C++ standards explicitly allow this, and to make an object you have to say struct f to disambiguate if you want the structure, or leave off struct if you want the function.

For C++ vs. C90, there's at least one way to get different behavior that's not implementation defined. C90 doesn't have single-line comments. With a little care, we can use that to create an expression with entirely different results in C90 and in C++.

int a = 10 //* comment */ 2 
        + 3;

In C++, everything from the // to the end of the line is a comment, so this works out as:

int a = 10 + 3;

Since C90 doesn't have single-line comments, only the /* comment */ is a comment. The first / and the 2 are both parts of the initialization, so it comes out to:

int a = 10 / 2 + 3;

So, a correct C++ compiler will give 13, but a strictly correct C90 compiler 8. Of course, I just picked arbitrary numbers here -- you can use other numbers as you see fit.

The following, valid in C and C++, is going to (most likely) result in different values in i in C and C++:

int i = sizeof('a');

See Size of character ('a') in C/C++ for an explanation of the difference.

Another one from this article:

#include <stdio.h>

int  sz = 80;

int main(void)
{
    struct sz { char c; };

    int val = sizeof(sz);      // sizeof(int) in C,
                               // sizeof(struct sz) in C++
    printf("%d\n", val);
    return 0;
}

C90 vs. C++11 (int vs. double):

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
  auto j = 1.5;
  printf("%d", (int)sizeof(j));
  return 0;
}

In C auto means local variable. In C90 it's ok to omit variable or function type. It defaults to int. In C++11 auto means something completely different, it tells the compiler to infer the type of the variable from the value used to initialize it.

Another example that I haven't seen mentioned yet, this one highlighting a preprocessor difference:

#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
#if true
    printf("true!\n");
#else
    printf("false!\n");
#endif
    return 0;
}

This prints "false" in C and "true" in C++ - In C, any undefined macro evaluates to 0. In C++, there's 1 exception: "true" evaluates to 1.