4 ms·

Your point is the standard that "optimizations shouldn't fuck up working code" is unreasonable? What point is there to optimizing something thats wrong? So you

Your point is the standard that "optimizations shouldn't fuck up working code" is unreasonable? What point is there to optimizing something thats wrong? So you can break things 10% faster?

josephcsible 5y ago
> Your point is the standard that "optimizations shouldn't fuck up working code" is unreasonable? By "working code", do you mean code that the standard and/or target implementation promise will do what you want, or do you mean code that just happened to do what you want the last time you tested it on your system? If you mean the latter, then yes.
- overgard 5y ago
  What percentage of code do you honestly think has no undefined behavior? (hint: hardly any). Are you fortunate enough to work in one of those code bases? Remember its not up to you to not write UB, its up to everyone that touches the code base. If you are stuck with UB, would you prefer a compiler that does the safe thing, or a compiler that unleashes dragons?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > What percentage of code do you honestly think has no undefined behavior? (hint: hardly any). Are you fortunate enough to work in one of those code bases? Remember its not up to you to not write UB, its up to everyone that touches the code base. Maybe we should focus on better warnings, static analyzers, and UBSan, so that people with UB can fix their code, rather than not letting compilers optimize anymore. > If you are stuck with UB, would you prefer a compiler that does the safe thing, or a compiler that unleashes dragons? I'd very much prefer that my compiler unleashes dragons, so that I notice the bugs and can fix them. If my compiler did what you want, then when someone else compiled my code with a different compiler, they'd find them instead. (And it's obviously totally unrealistic to expect that literally every compiler in the world would do what you're asking.)

Your point is the standard that "optimizations shouldn't fuck up working code" is unreasonable? What point is there to optimizing something thats wrong? So you can break things 10% faster?

josephcsible 5y ago

> Your point is the standard that "optimizations shouldn't fuck up working code" is unreasonable? By "working code", do you mean code that the standard and/or target implementation promise will do what you want, or do you mean code that just happened to do what you want the last time you tested it on your system? If you mean the latter, then yes.

overgard 5y ago
What percentage of code do you honestly think has no undefined behavior? (hint: hardly any). Are you fortunate enough to work in one of those code bases? Remember its not up to you to not write UB, its up to everyone that touches the code base. If you are stuck with UB, would you prefer a compiler that does the safe thing, or a compiler that unleashes dragons?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > What percentage of code do you honestly think has no undefined behavior? (hint: hardly any). Are you fortunate enough to work in one of those code bases? Remember its not up to you to not write UB, its up to everyone that touches the code base. Maybe we should focus on better warnings, static analyzers, and UBSan, so that people with UB can fix their code, rather than not letting compilers optimize anymore. > If you are stuck with UB, would you prefer a compiler that does the safe thing, or a compiler that unleashes dragons? I'd very much prefer that my compiler unleashes dragons, so that I notice the bugs and can fix them. If my compiler did what you want, then when someone else compiled my code with a different compiler, they'd find them instead. (And it's obviously totally unrealistic to expect that literally every compiler in the world would do what you're asking.)