|From:||Joel Rees <joel.rees-AT-gmail.com>|
|Subject:||Re: MIT discovered issue with gcc|
|Date:||Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:35:57 +0900|
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Bernhard R. Link <email@example.com> wrote: > * Octavio Alvarez <firstname.lastname@example.org> [131127 21:28]: >> [...] > As people want fast programs it makes sense in my eyes to say here: > This modification has big advantages and only is a problem for programs > already not supposed to work by the standard. So, since people want fast cars, we should re-write our standards to ignore safety because the driver did something stupid? I'm against seatbelt laws, myself, how about you? Once upon a time, the standard included words to the effect that undefined behavior should at least remain sane for the implemented run-time for some definition of sane. That "should" part seems to have been thrown away in an effort to compete for speed. And with whom are we competing so mindlessly? The standard needs to be re-written to encourage sane behavior in undefined situations, and if you don't like that opinion, I'll take some time later, when I have some, to rip your arguments that I've clipped above to shreds. I don't mind if you don't. -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds