3 ms·

To respond to your edit: > Hunting for UB via static analysis and then changing your output based on whether you find it simply is not what the word "ignoring"

To respond to your edit: > Hunting for UB via static analysis and then changing your output based on whether you find it simply is not what the word "ignoring" means. Why not? A static analysis pass can flag a code path as containing UB, and future passes can then ignore that path. Sure sounds like "ignoring" to me.

torstenvl 4y ago
Ignoring Y because it has X is the opposite of ignoring X. It is fundamentally impossible to both ignore X and make decisions based on X at the same time. Something cannot be both ignored and a key criterion. Your argument is akin to saying that a company hiring process that "ignores race" means eliminating applicants based on their race. It is untrue. It is the opposite of true. And I think you know that, so please stop trolling.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- aw1621107 4y ago
  > It is fundamentally impossible to both ignore X and make decisions based on X at the same time. Of course you can - the former can be the action you take as a result of the decision. Choosing to not consider something is distinct from refusing to make a decision based on that something, but both are "ignoring" that something. Again, this boils down to how "ignoring the situation" is interpreted. I can ignore situations with UB and proceed as if those situations aren't present, or I can ignore situations with UB and proceed as if the UB weren't present. The Standard's wording does not rule out one or the other. In addition, why would the "ignore the existence of UB" not fall under "behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment"? That seems to match "pretend the UB were not present" much more closely. > Your argument is akin to saying that a company hiring process that "ignores race" means eliminating applicants based on their race. No, it means that the hiring process makes decisions without considering what race-based effects that may have. If that happens to result in weird race-based outcomes, then that's what happens.

torstenvl 4y ago

Ignoring Y because it has X is the opposite of ignoring X. It is fundamentally impossible to both ignore X and make decisions based on X at the same time. Something cannot be both ignored and a key criterion. Your argument is akin to saying that a company hiring process that "ignores race" means eliminating applicants based on their race. It is untrue. It is the opposite of true. And I think you know that, so please stop trolling.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
aw1621107 4y ago
> It is fundamentally impossible to both ignore X and make decisions based on X at the same time. Of course you can - the former can be the action you take as a result of the decision. Choosing to not consider something is distinct from refusing to make a decision based on that something, but both are "ignoring" that something. Again, this boils down to how "ignoring the situation" is interpreted. I can ignore situations with UB and proceed as if those situations aren't present, or I can ignore situations with UB and proceed as if the UB weren't present. The Standard's wording does not rule out one or the other. In addition, why would the "ignore the existence of UB" not fall under "behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment"? That seems to match "pretend the UB were not present" much more closely. > Your argument is akin to saying that a company hiring process that "ignores race" means eliminating applicants based on their race. No, it means that the hiring process makes decisions without considering what race-based effects that may have. If that happens to result in weird race-based outcomes, then that's what happens.