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

[Russell Wallace]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:

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

Not at all. As you say, that would require all compiler implementers to
agree, and what little behaviour is defined in the standards is presumably
already what all compiler implementers can agree on.

I'm proposing that LLVM unilaterally replace most undefined behaviour with
implementation-defined behaviour.

Note that this would give it a substantial competitive advantage over GCC:
a lot of people care far more about reliability than about tiny increments
of performance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150701/e4c86079/attachment.html>