As to your first point: fair. It shouldn't modify it in a semantically material way. > that's precisely what happens No, it really isn't. Numerous compilers d

As to your first point: fair. It shouldn't modify it in a semantically material way. > that's precisely what happens No, it really isn't. Numerous compilers do static analysis to identify code that could be UB and then mangle it to mean something entirely different or eliminate it entirely. And if the compiler really did already do this, you wouldn't need to resort to... > the compiler can do what it want[s] Under current standards, yes, but that's a circular and nonsensical argument. You can't base your argument on what the standard permits when the very content of what the standard should be is the topic of discussion. > please let me know what should be mandated I already responded. The ANSI C standard is clear, and the modification to that language in subsequent ISO standards is, in my opinion, ill-advised.