5 ms·

> Undefined behaviour renders your entire program meaningless That's exactly the complaint. Consider that the implementations of the standard library sometimes

> Undefined behaviour renders your entire program meaningless That's exactly the complaint. Consider that the implementations of the standard library sometimes have exposed UB: that renders behaviour of all of the running code on the system undefined. Many programmers believe that the fallout of the UB could, and therefore should, be limited in scope.

coliveira 4y ago
To achieve your goal, compilers would have to disable any sufficiently powerful optimization. If you write bugs (UB), a powerful compiler will eventually catch them and generate code that you didn't intend at the beginning. However, this is not the fault of the compiler or the language.
- chongli 4y ago
  Compiler writers have already done this. With flags you can disable any optimization you like, with all of the performance loss that entails. But then people complain that their programs are slow. What people really want is an AI that ignores the code they write and just “does what they really meant.” But of course that’s not foolproof either. Every day people ask each other to do things and miscommunications occur, with the wrong thing being done. I don’t really know what to say other than “people should be more careful and also more forgiving.”
  - coliveira 4y ago
    Exactly. All the hoopla about UB is complaining about how compiler optimizations work and the fact that the standard committee makes clear (with each new meeting) what is considered undefined behavior or not. They should instead thank the committee for clarifying this.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  It is the fault of the language to the extent that the purpose of the language is to make it easy to write correct programs, and UB makes it really hard (and in some cases impossible) to write correct programs.
  - coliveira 4y ago
    It is just the opposite. UB is a clarification to tell programmers what the language considers to be undesired behavior. If they didn't say anything, it would be always a mystery if a certain construct was allowed or not, effectively making it compiler dependent. Compilers would also have less avenue for creating optimizations. In the next iterations of the C standard we may see more constructs classified as UB.
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      That sounds good in theory, but many things that are UB in C/C++ are UB because they are really hard to verify at compile time which makes them almost impossible to program around. Any signed addition in C is potential UB unless you have a proof that all numbers that will ever be input to the addition won't cause overflow (which is made harder because C doesn't define the size of the default integer types). Furthermore, no progress is UB which means that as a programmer, you have to solve the halting problem for your program before knowing whether it has a bug.
      - chongli 4y ago
        See my other comment [1] which addresses the exact things you brought up here. Safe checked arithmetic is a new standard feature in C23. If no progress were not UB, then tons of loop optimizations would be impossible and then we couldn’t have nice things, like numpy. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35406554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35406554
      - coliveira 4y ago
        > Any signed addition in C is potential UB unless you have a proof that all numbers that will ever be input to the addition won't cause overflow This has always been the case. Standard C has always operated with the possibility that addition can overflow. The programmer or library writer is responsible to check if the used types are large enough. If you want to be perfectly sure you need to check for overflow. Making this UB has not changed the nature of the issue. > is made harder because C doesn't define the size of the default integer types They correctly made this implementation defined. But C now has different byte sized integer types if you want to be sure.

coliveira 4y ago

To achieve your goal, compilers would have to disable any sufficiently powerful optimization. If you write bugs (UB), a powerful compiler will eventually catch them and generate code that you didn't intend at the beginning. However, this is not the fault of the compiler or the language.

chongli 4y ago
Compiler writers have already done this. With flags you can disable any optimization you like, with all of the performance loss that entails. But then people complain that their programs are slow. What people really want is an AI that ignores the code they write and just “does what they really meant.” But of course that’s not foolproof either. Every day people ask each other to do things and miscommunications occur, with the wrong thing being done. I don’t really know what to say other than “people should be more careful and also more forgiving.”
- coliveira 4y ago
  Exactly. All the hoopla about UB is complaining about how compiler optimizations work and the fact that the standard committee makes clear (with each new meeting) what is considered undefined behavior or not. They should instead thank the committee for clarifying this.
adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
It is the fault of the language to the extent that the purpose of the language is to make it easy to write correct programs, and UB makes it really hard (and in some cases impossible) to write correct programs.
- coliveira 4y ago
  It is just the opposite. UB is a clarification to tell programmers what the language considers to be undesired behavior. If they didn't say anything, it would be always a mystery if a certain construct was allowed or not, effectively making it compiler dependent. Compilers would also have less avenue for creating optimizations. In the next iterations of the C standard we may see more constructs classified as UB.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    That sounds good in theory, but many things that are UB in C/C++ are UB because they are really hard to verify at compile time which makes them almost impossible to program around. Any signed addition in C is potential UB unless you have a proof that all numbers that will ever be input to the addition won't cause overflow (which is made harder because C doesn't define the size of the default integer types). Furthermore, no progress is UB which means that as a programmer, you have to solve the halting problem for your program before knowing whether it has a bug.
    - chongli 4y ago
      See my other comment [1] which addresses the exact things you brought up here. Safe checked arithmetic is a new standard feature in C23. If no progress were not UB, then tons of loop optimizations would be impossible and then we couldn’t have nice things, like numpy. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35406554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35406554
    - coliveira 4y ago
      > Any signed addition in C is potential UB unless you have a proof that all numbers that will ever be input to the addition won't cause overflow This has always been the case. Standard C has always operated with the possibility that addition can overflow. The programmer or library writer is responsible to check if the used types are large enough. If you want to be perfectly sure you need to check for overflow. Making this UB has not changed the nature of the issue. > is made harder because C doesn't define the size of the default integer types They correctly made this implementation defined. But C now has different byte sized integer types if you want to be sure.