4 ms·
Yes, djb wanted a C flavour with no UB. That could also work. A macro assembler could fall behind optimizations, but a C with no UB could still optimize pretty
by actionfromafar 3y ago
Yes, djb wanted a C flavour with no UB. That could also work. A macro assembler could fall behind optimizations, but a C with no UB could still optimize pretty well I reckon. Maybe there is a small market for an optimized language with no UB.
- pjc50 3y ago"No UB" is really hard to do without sacrificing some portability. It took C decades to specify that arithmetic was twos-complement, for example. However "UB means the optimizer is free to change the semantics on the assumption that you don't hit UB" is a huge source of surprises.