This is supposed to be the compiler of the future?https://twitter.com/ch3root/status/735844188101726208 …
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker
@ch3root deviating from spec is okay IFF documented, especially important in compilers1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @richinseattle @ch3root
Only if there's a unified option for "adhere to the standard" rather than N different esoteric ones you have to know
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @richinseattle
Yeah, let's introduce an option to choose a particular standard, like -std=c11. Oh, wait... :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ch3root @richinseattle
Exactly. My point was that the standards-conforming options should all be implied by -std=c11, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @ch3root
if a vuln was found in a standard should we require extra flags to disable feature, should it be default?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @richinseattle @ch3root
I don't know what "a vuln in the standard" would look like.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
AFAICT it's a meaningless term. The closest thing might be funcs like "gets" that are impossible to use right.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
But then the only fix is teaching programmers not to use them, or amending the standard to remove them.
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker @ch3root
right I'm in favor of the latter. Default insecurity through backwards compatible standards needs to stop
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.