2 ms·
“More aggressively using UB” isn’t the right way to think about it. In the C ecosystem, the compiler gets to define what UB means. They broke compatibility wi
by hedora 5mo ago
“More aggressively using UB” isn’t the right way to think about it.
In the C ecosystem, the compiler gets to define what UB means. They broke compatibility with their previous UB semantics, then blamed the language spec.
- simonask 5mo ago> In the C ecosystem, the compiler gets to define what UB means. It really doesn't though. The current revision of the ISO/IEC 9899 standards document gets to define it, nobody else.
- hedora 5mo agoNo; that says what things have undefined behavior in the language spec. The compiler / os / hw platform are free to define the behavior of those things. Leaving them undefined at the language spec is the mechanism that allows them to be defined by the underlying system. C has worked this way since its initial release.