[simonask]

It's not flexible in practice, because knowing the standard isn't optional. If you make the choice to not follow the standard, you're making the choice to write fundamentally broken software. Sometimes with catastrophic consequences.

[jstimpfle]

I'm making the choice to pass pointers as void to get low-friction polymorphism. I'm making the choice to control the memory layout of my data structures, including of levels and type of indirection. I'm making the choice to control my own memory allocators and closely control lifetimes, closely control (almost) everything that happens in the system.

That has nothing to do with not following the standard.

[saagarjha]

But be as you may you’re not following the standard.

[jstimpfle]

what is your point?

[Xirdus]

If you don't follow the standard, gcc -O2 can introduce bugs to your code that you never even wrote. Skipping null checks, executing both branches of a conditional, and so on.

[jstimpfle]

Where did I say I'm not following the standard?

[Xirdus]

I interpreted these words:

> If you want to be standards correct, yes you have to know the standard well.

to mean that being standards-correct is optional. It's not. Every C programmer needs to know every possible UB by heart and never introduce any of it to their code, or else they'll be constantly introducing subtle, hard to debug bugs that contradict the actual code they wrote.

Maybe you meant something different by those words, but then I'm confused what the "if" was supposed to mean.