[Negitivefrags]

It’s not incorrect.

The code says that if x is true then a=13 and if it is false than b=37.

This is the case. Its just that a=13 even if x is false. A thing that the code had nothing to say about, and so the compiler is free to do.

[foltik]

Ok, so you’re saying it’s “technically correct?”

Practically speaking, I’d argue that a compiler assuming uninitialized stack or heap memory is always equal to some arbitrary convenient constant is obviously incorrect, actively harmful, and benefits no one.

[publicdebates]

In this example, the human author clearly intended mutual exclusivity in the condition branches, and this optimization would in fact destroy that assumption. That said, (a) human intentions are not evidence of foolproof programming logic, and often miscalculate state, and (b) the author could possibly catch most or all errors here when compiling without optimizations during debugging phase.

[1718627440]

Also even without UB, even for a naive translation, a could just happen to be 13 by chance, so the behaviour isn't even an example of nasal demons.