top | item 37181301

(no title)

anon946 | 2 years ago

Is all UB silly? E.g., wouldn't fully defining what happens when one goes beyond the end of an array impose a non-trivial performance hit for at least some code?

discuss

order

torstenvl|2 years ago

Yes. But there's middle ground between fully-defined behavior (lots of slow checks) and what current compiler-writers think UB is (do whatever I want).

Specifically, implement UB the way it is described in the standard: pretend it isn't UB, do it anyway, consequences be damned. That's what "ignore the situation with unpredictable results" actually means.

muldvarp|2 years ago

> compiler-writers think UB is

The current standard is _very_ explicit that undefined behavior is indeed undefined, i.e. "do whatever you want".

> pretend it isn't UB, do it anyway, consequences be damned.

This explicitly isn't a requirement, but even if it were, "ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results" can be interpreted in numerous ways. One of these ways is "ignoring any cases in which UB is encountered" which is exactly what compilers are doing. Then again, saying "the compiler didn't ignore the situation and as a consequence I got results I didn't predict" isn't a strong argument when the standard specifically told you that you will get unpredictable results.

muldvarp|2 years ago

There are enough high-performance languages without undefined behavior and I don't think they suffer heavily for it.