“Undefined behavior” considered harmful (was Re: Bug 29863 - Segmentation fault in memcmp-sse2.S…)

[Andreas Schwab]

On Dez 29 2022, Zack Weinberg via Libc-alpha wrote:

> 1. The C standard uses “undefined behavior” far more liberally than it
>    ought to.  In many cases of existing UB the committee could define
>    the behavior (possibly as implementation-defined or unspecified)
>    without any actual negative consequences.  It seems the committee
>    *is* moving in this direction as of C2x, for instance by dropping
>    the allowances for non-twos-complement signed arithmetic, but they
>    could and should go a lot farther down that road.

That's not removing an undefined behavior, it's removing an
implementation choice.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."