Comment by dataflow
11 hours ago
> but that the consequence of this should be somewhat bounded or as expected for the target machine.
Aren't "unpredictable results" and "no requirements" contrary to the idea that the behavior would be "somewhat bounded"?
Notice though "ignoring the situation" thru "documented manner characteristic of the environment". Even though truly you can read this in an uncharitable way, you could also try and understand the intent of this paragraph, and I think reading it for its intents is always the best way to interpret a language standard when the wording is ambiguous or soft, especially if you're writing a compiler.
I don't think you could sincerely argue that this definition intends to allow the compiler to totally rewrite your code because of one guaranteed UB detected on line 5, just that it would be good to print a diagnostic if it can be detected, and if not to do what's "characteristic of the environment". Does that make sense?
Ex falso quodlibet.
Bounding UB would be a nice idea, or at least prohibiting time-traveling UB (and there is an effort in that direction). But properly specifing it is actually hard.
Prohibiting "time-travelling" UB would be horrible as that's a very important mechanism for dead code elimination.
1 reply →
Reading for intent is pragmatic.
Reading adversarially is what people do who are looking for ways that something can be abused, from an offensive or defensive position.
Personally I am tired of the entire topic.
What's bad is when your compiler writers and most of the people involved in standardisation are reading it adversarially.
2 replies →
> Notice though "ignoring the situation" thru "documented manner characteristic of the environment".
I noticed that. Those are 100% consistent & implied by the parts of the standard I quoted that you are ignoring, though.
What you're doing is:
- Arguing is that those phrases describe the totality of the implications, rather than mere examples, without providing anything to base this method of argumentation on.
- Completely ignoring the other phrases I quoted, which (taken at face value) contradict your reading.
- Claiming that anyone who disagrees is being insincere(?) and reading the standard uncharitably.
- Not even attempting to support this line of reasoning through other arguments.
So you're not only asking people to read contradictions into the standard, but also insinuating that people who don't are not arguing in good faith. That... honestly isn't a winning strategy.
Note that I'm not even saying your conclusion regarding their intent is necessarily wrong. I'm just saying your argument is bad. And that there is a difference between what the rules are and what some people believe their authors intended them to be.
If I wanted to argue your position, I would look for other parts of the standard where they do what you're claiming. That is, where the literal meaning of the wording would be crazy, and which would clearly contract what everyone believes the authors of the standard intended it to mean. Then you would at least have some basis for extrapolating that line of reasoning to this paragraph. At that point you might at least get an acknowledgment from the other side that the standard is unclear and/or has a defect, even if they didn't agree with your take on what requirements it imposes as-written.
> I don't think you could sincerely argue that this definition intends to allow the compiler to totally rewrite your code because of one guaranteed UB detected on line 5,
I'm not sure if you're exaggerating ("totally"?), being sloppy, or misunderstanding, or if you actually mean this literally, but I already don't believe it does that, and I have never seen any compiler interpret it that way either. Sorry, but you're going to have to be more precise and pedantic here so you actually have something realistic to argue against. Right now it looks like you have an impression of UB that doesn't match reality.