5 ms·

i had read this before, and it has been posted here multiple times, but somehow i had missed: > Thus the core C language escaped nearly unscathed from the stan

• kps 3y ago
  In 1993 the unintended consequences of X3J11 “undefined behavior” had not yet emerged, nor had the reality that future Standard committees would double down rather than fix it. If anyone had realized what UB would turn out to mean, it would not have been invented that way. Dennis Ritchie's 1988 comments on the `noalias` proposal match exactly: “the committee is planting timebombs that are sure to explode in people's faces”; “a license for the compiler to undertake aggressive optimizations that are completely legal by the committee's rules, but make hash of apparently safe programs”, and consequently: “[It] must go. This is non-negotiable. [...] The concept is wrong from start to finish. It negates every brave promise X3J11 ever made about codifying existing practices, preserving the existing body of code, and keeping (dare I say it?) ‘the spirit of C.’”
  • marcosdumay 3y ago
    I don't think it was even possible to predict what "undefined behavior" would turn out to mean, because the modern interpretation does clearly not come from the standards text. The standard describes the old interpretation of "if you do that, you get the consequences". The fact that somebody came up with a reinterpretation that bring a completely unreasonable meaning that just happens to be compatible with the text is all up to the people reinterpreting it. Nobody preemptively disavows unreasonable interpretations when writing something.