[vasama]

I believe we were discussing a potential addition to the C standard. It would however be useless unless the standard also defined such things as stack layout and a closed set of operations which may consume more stack space, such as calling a function.

[kragen]

It's true that this potential addition to the C standard would not permit things like CPython or Chicken to depend only on the C standard, it's true, but then every C program already depends on things other than the C standard—such as the example given in TFA, that any C implementation is entitled to abort any C program because it ran out of stack.

Moreover, every nontrivial C program in practice contains UB.

Nevertheless, it does matter what is and isn't standardized; standardizing such functions would greatly improve the situation for programs like those I mention, because they would be able to rely on the C standard to find out when they're about to run out of stack, an event they already have code for handling. It's true that a pathological C library implementation could still totally break their stack-exhaustion-handling code, and in fact that's already true, but fortunately there are lots of C library implementations that behave well enough in practice.