On 11/09/2015 03:56 PM, David Brown wrote: > We typically cannot use "sanatize" options, nor can we accept that a > bug in one part of the program causes undue and unnecessarily > damaging side-effects in other parts. Well, you have to get used to that. It is reality: computers work that way. I'm sure you know that if you hit the wrong I/O port with a wild write odd things will happen. Whether that's "undue" or "unnecessary" I couldn't say: it just is. C definitely works that way. Maybe there should be a nice small language which is useful for embedded developers and doesn't have all the interesting UB properties that C has. (Ada, maybe? Probably not.) Maybe you could define a language compatible with C with the UB removed. But defining the semantics of such a language would not be easy. And I don't think it makes much sense to change GCC without such a rigorous language definition. Andrew.
