> 1. Fixing/avoiding UBs requires discipline (and time) not all programmers have 2. Many programmers pointed to UB in their code would argue that it is not a pr

> 1. Fixing/avoiding UBs requires discipline (and time) not all programmers have 2. Many programmers pointed to UB in their code would argue that it is not a problem at all These points aren't wrong, but it understates how pernicious undefined behaviour can be. As I stated earlier, even well-resourced high-profile codebases like Chromium and the Linux kernel play cat-and-mouse with security issues originating in undefined behaviour. It's not just a matter of hiring diligent coders and using the usual quality-control processes (testing, code reviews, static analysis). It's possible for C/C++ code to be entirely free of undefined behaviour, but in practice this only seems to happen when formal methods are used, or when people use code-generators/transpilers to avoid writing C/C++ by hand.