@spun_off so I was thinking about the benefits of UB for bug indication and concluded there is none
If it's well-defined, then programs doing it are valid, have specified behavior, and impls must match that behavior.
-
-
And if the mandated behavior is trapping/aborting, you need very expensive runtime checks all over.
-
Checking for OOB accesses, aliasing errors, double free, etc. with full accuracy is NOT easy or cheap.
-
you can permit BOTH.
-
UB _is_ the formal model for permitting both. Are you just objecting to the name "UB"?
-
nope. UB permits *more* than these two. I want to permit *exactly* these two.
-
an implementation can *either* define the behavior to [something sensible] *or* make it a trap while being conformant.
-
NB: I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell WG14 actually adopts this. I am saying that UB is not strictly…
-
necessary to find bugs in this way, just like -Werror diagnoses constructs that aren't (necessarily) invoking UB
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.