3 ms·

This post, written by someone who is or has been on the standardization committee gives a different point of view: http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2

This post, written by someone who is or has been on the standardization committee gives a different point of view: http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2014/08/31/undefined-behavior-pay-up-for-shut-up/ http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2014/08/31/undefi... What always surprises me is that, when a new optimization comes out justified by a sentence in a dark corner of the C standard, you can usually trace the sentence back all the way to C90.

Kristine1975 10y ago
>the members of the committee were rubbing their hands at the thought of all the optimizations the poorly specified ambiguous successive versions of the document would allow: I couldn't find that in the blog post you linked?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pascal_cuoq 10y ago
  You are right. Either I was thinking of another comment by Derek Jones (one of the two persons I know on the C standardization committee, which is otherwise quite opaque) or I projected my own image of a patiently malevolent committee on the phrase “doing stuff that we could only dream about back in the day” that he did not mean this way. I have edited my comment.