> Security exploits is the problem, because what common people that don't read WG14 mailings think the word undefined means, and what everyone else involved wit

> Security exploits is the problem, because what common people that don't read WG14 mailings think the word undefined means, and what everyone else involved with creating compilers understand what they are allowed to do, is not the same. Your comment lacks credibility. Your hypothetical scenario would only be conceivable if a) a team was well versed enough in C to adopt a specific toolchain to leverage implementetion-defined behavior that leveraged behavior left undefined by the C standard, b) somehow the same team decides on a whim to replace their toolset with some other random toolset without eve being aware of their toolset-specific code. This is far from a realistic scenario, and reads more like mindless complains about UB coming from a place of ignorance.