5 ms·

So, generally, optimizations shouldn't be allowed? Dead code removal shouldn't be allowed? Substituting constants shouldn't be allowed? Because "ignoring" UB is

So, generally, optimizations shouldn't be allowed? Dead code removal shouldn't be allowed? Substituting constants shouldn't be allowed? Because "ignoring" UB is pretty much what the compiler did, and then let its optimization passes run to their conclusion. > ignoring the fact that an array access is out of bounds and performing the array access The idea that this is even meaningful is precisely the "portable assembler" misconception.

mpweiher 3y ago
Except the misconception is that it is not. "Committee did not want to force programmers into writing portably, to preclude the use of C as a “high-level assembler:” https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n897.pdf https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n897.pdf p10, line 39 "C code can be portable. " line 30