3 ms·
> they usually mean requiring that compile-time-detectible undefined behaviors I don't believe that's the case for plenty of reasons, such as: - compilers alr
by geezerjay 9y ago
> they usually mean requiring that compile-time-detectible undefined behaviors
I don't believe that's the case for plenty of reasons, such as:
- compilers already do that ( yeah, it's one of those RTFM things. See for example GCC's undefined behavior sanitizer)
- the standard already specifies exactly what it is left undefined, thus it's a compiler-related issue (see point above)
Let's face it: some people mindlessly parrot the"undefined behaviour" mantra just for show.
- derefr 9y ago> compilers already do that ( yeah, it's one of those RTFM things) I believe 99% of what people care about the C standard doing, re: UB handling, is requiring compilers to make certain behaviours the default, rather than hidden behind different flags that C newbies who don't understand UB (who thus code most of the bad C!) won't ever set.
- jcelerier 9y ago> - compilers already do that ( yeah, it's one of those RTFM things. See for example GCC's undefined behavior sanitizer) well, no they don't. UBSan is at run-time because most UB is impossible to catch at compile-time.