4 ms·
Sounds like the standard should say that it results in an implementation-defined value (or wording to that effect). Saying it's UB gives the compilers way too m
by gpvos 2mo ago
Sounds like the standard should say that it results in an implementation-defined value (or wording to that effect). Saying it's UB gives the compilers way too much leeway.
- 20k 2mo agoIts incredibly hard to get changes like this into the standard, because there's a core contingent of people who seem to feel that UB is part of C++'s identity, and then there's very vague hand waving about performance. There is luckily a pretty successful push in wg21 to start removing a lot of the more unnecessary UB, so hopefully this gets sent to the sausage factory as well
- account42 2mo agoYou're the one doing the hand waving here. There are absolutely cases where UB is important for the optimizer. Float to int overflow is not one of them.
- aw1621107 2mo agoI think you might be misreading GP? They're basically agreeing with GGP ("so hopefully this gets sent to the sausage factory as well"); they're just saying that the process of actually changing the standard to remove (this kind of) UB is/has been rather challenging.