3 ms·

I don't think that is what the article is arguing for. There it would be more akin to "absolutely limited to" as they don't want anything outside of the example

• mpweiher 8y ago
  > Unfortunately for them the examples are still open enough to allow for what compilers do (things like remove code that the author intended be left in). Though one could argue that, I don't really think this is the case. Certainly "ignoring" it isn't the case when you record the fact that there is UB and then optimize based on it. They also aren't issuing a diagnostic and terminating, either at compile or runtime. So the remaining option is "behave in a manner characteristic of the environment". Which is fairly loose/rubbery, and I'd be happy to tighten it further. I still don't think it allows the current behavior even as written though, because I don't see how that is "characteristic of the environment". But the stinger is that the behavior has to be documented, which very little of the UB exploitation currently is.