[LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses

[Renato Golin]

On 1 July 2015 at 15:20, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> Group all monkey's paw optimisations together, and enable them only if an
> extra compiler flag is supplied. Or failing that, at least have a compiler
> flag that will disable all of them (while leaving all the safe optimisations
> enabled).

So, are you suggesting we get rid of all undefined AND implementation
defined behaviour from compilers?

That means getting:
* all compiler people to agree on a specific interpretation, then
* all hardware people to re-implement their hardware, re-ship their products

Unless there is a flag, say, -std=c11, which makes the compiler follow
the standard?

If not all, how pragmatic is good pragmatic? How much of it should we
do? How are we going to get all compiler folks from all fields to
agree on what's acceptable and what's not?

Funny enough, there is a place where that happens already, the C/C++
standard committee. And what's left of undefined / implementation
defined behaviour is what they don't agree on.

I can't see how this could be different...

cheers,
--renato