3 ms·

But just to be clear @chongli is logical Think of UB as a probabilistic error. I.e. it is always stupid to rely on it 1. Write code without errors -- sensible

But just to be clear @chongli is logical Think of UB as a probabilistic error. I.e. it is always stupid to rely on it 1. Write code without errors -- sensible 2. Allow compilers to assume the absence of errors -- occasionally sensible, since it speeds up your program In defence of UB, for the most part they are things that should break your program anyway: stack overflow is never correct. So your choice is mostly to fail badly quickly, or to fail slowly well Thanks to google making the UB sanitizers you are free to make that choice even in C

Kranar 4y ago
I'd argue that it's stupid to think that it's stupid to rely on UB. Almost any non-trivial software explicitly relies on undefined behavior, including safety critical libraries such as cryptographic libraries, the Linux operating system has rampant undefined behavior that it makes a conscious decision to use. POSIX makes use of undefined behavior for shared libraries (it treats functions loaded from shared libraries as void*, which is undefined behavior).