[peppermint_gum]

>It's only tone deaf to people who understand "undefined behavior" as an epithet or as synonymous with giving a license to compilers to screw you over. The term doesn't have either of those meaning to those on the C committee.

It's unfortunate but not surprising that the C committee isn't aware of the problems with the undefined behavior.

In fact, after I started reading WG14 meetings minutes, I completely lost faith that any of the serious problems with the standard will ever get fixed.

[coliveira]

This is not a problem with the committee and is not a problem with compiler writers. The committee is only marking certain behaviors as UB. Compilers can do what they think is more sensible in these situations. And compiler writers are not forcing you to accept these extreme optimizations. You always have the option of disabling optimizations and accept that your code has bugs (UB). You just need to test the code you write under different compiler settings, similarly to how you test code in different environments.

[__s]

"just disable optimizations" is not a solution unless the compiler allows enough fine grained control where that solution is `-ffree-zero-sized-realloc`