Via @johnregehr this further tale of compiler “optimizations” that break correct C code without even a warning by deleting a necessary null pointer check. In this example, Bar contains a stack of Foos. Sometimes the Foo stack is empty, so
Types considered harmful. From a remark by Wolfram.
Originally Nov 30, 2017. (revised 2021,2023) Russell introduced what is often viewed as his most original contribution to mathematical logic: his theory of types—which in essence tries to distinguish between sets, sets of sets, etc. by considering them to be
C compiler developers are hostile to C programming
From the LLVM developer mailing list this remarkable exchange in which Chris Lattner of LLVM says that the compiler use of undefined behavior (UB) is so “crappy” that the only solution is to abandon C programming (my bold). On Jul
The C standard versus C and the mother of all hacks.
The Kafkaesque interaction of the C standard and the main open source C compilers was concisely outlined by one of the main LLVM authors back in 2011: “knowing that INT_MAX+1 is undefined allows optimizing X+1 > X to “true”. Knowing
The C standard committee effort to kill C continues
Consider the following code: void f(void) { unsigned char x[1]; /* intentionally uninitialized */ x[0] ^= x[0]; printf(“%d\n”, x[0]); printf(“%d\n”, x[0]); return; } In this example, the unsigned char array x is intentionally uninitialized but cannot contain a trap representation because it has a