5 ms·

You'd think. But there was a long argument here[1] not even a week ago with multiple people passionately asserting that they were entitled to be able to rely on

You'd think. But there was a long argument here[1] not even a week ago with multiple people passionately asserting that they were entitled to be able to rely on completely predictable and non-fatal semantics when derefrencing a null pointer. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13640505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13640505

catnaroek 10y ago
The problem with C and C++ isn't so much that undefined behavior exists, but the fact that the rules that determine when a program has defined behavior aren't formalized rigorously enough. The C and C++ specifications are written in natural language, which always leaves room for ambiguity, no matter how pedantically one tries to write. If you want to convince a single other person that a C program you have written has no undefined behavior, then you and that person have to hopefully interpret English the same way. It would be completely hopeless to try to convince a hundred people that a nontrivial C program has no undefined behavior. And successful programs typically have way more than a hundred users.