4 ms·
The problem with this apology for the standard -- that nobody would interpret it so unreasonably -- is that many programmers (like me) wrote programs assuming w
by abecedarius 11y ago
The problem with this apology for the standard -- that nobody would interpret it so unreasonably -- is that many programmers (like me) wrote programs assuming what seemed like reasonable bounds on how far compiler writers would go in their language lawyering, which a decade or two later got flouted, making our old code start mysteriously breaking, in a hard-to-figure way, only in the latest versions of the compilers, which at the time were notorious for compiler bugs. If you trust the same compiler writers to respect today's common idea of reasonable engineering tradeoffs, well, I hope it works out better for you.
- mpweiher 11y ago> The problem with this apology for the standard While I agree with most of what you wrote, it sounds like you are blaming the standard. Seems to me the proper blame is the unreasonableness of the language-lawyering by compiler engineers...which as you point out is a fairly recent phenomenon. I always like to say that my first C compiler was pre-ANSI-C, so by today's language-lawyering all behavior was undefined and therefore the compiler could have done anything at all. Yet for some strange reason the code produced was more predictable than today. http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/04/cc-osmartass.html http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/04/cc-osmartass.html
- to3m 11y agoSee also: http://robertoconcerto.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/strict-aliasing.html http://robertoconcerto.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/strict-aliasin... and https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/boring-crypto/48qa1kWignU/o8GGp2K1DAAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/boring-crypto/48qa1kWi...