> Anyone working on a compiler has any input if there are plans, in the (unlikely) case the next WG decides to go sane on undefined behavior, how their compiler

> Anyone working on a compiler has any input if there are plans, in the (unlikely) case the next WG decides to go sane on undefined behavior, how their compiler is going to address that new standard? Disclaimer: I have contributed on my own time to one of the GCC frontends, so I guess I know a little bit more about compilers and the compiler development than the average Joe, but I wouldn't call myself an expert nor am I in a position to do any decisions wrt this for GCC. With that out of the way: - You can see compiler development, particularly the optimizer stuff, as a game, where the standard limits what you can do, and the goal is to make SPEC CPU [1] run as fast as possible (your employer says which target CPU(s) you should focus on). - The standard is the "contract" between the user and the compiler writers. Compiler writers do take standards conformance pretty seriously. - If the standard changes, say to limit undefined behavior, compiler developers adapt to the new rules, and the game continues. No big drama here. - AFAICT GCC developers wouldn't complain that loudly about "losing" previously allowed optimizations. There is (again, AFAICT) sympathy towards the viewpoint of changing the standard towards improving robustness. - What you won't see is GCC, or any other compiler, doing it on their own without the standard backing them. That would just lose performance compared to the competition, and wouldn't help users write portable code anyway. [1] Yes, there are other benchmarks too, but SPEC CPU is the most influential one.