Re: MIT discovered issue with gcc
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Bernhard R. Link <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Octavio Alvarez <email@example.com> [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.
Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.