Paul Schlie wrote:
The root of the concern being expressed is with respect to the compilers use of statically identified undefined behaviors as opportunities to invoke alternative semantics which are easily identified as being inconsistent with the target's native semantics, thus altering the logical behavior of the program than would otherwise have resulted. (without any halting solutions required)
You are still not understanding, these are NOT cases of "statically identified undefined behavior". Those are the trivial cases that are uninterestig.
As candidly, regardless of this being technically allowed, it should obvious that any optimization which may likely alter the behavior of a program should never be invoked without explicit request and ideally diagnosis of the resulting alternative possibly undesired and/or fatal behavior.
If the behavior is undefined, then it is undefined, and you cannot talk about a change in behavior. This is what non-deterministic semantics is about.
To be more clear, specifically as examples: - As VRP relies on the static analysis of value ranges, primarily based on embedded implicit and/or explicit constant values which enables the
It most certainly is NOT possible to statically identify situations that cause overflow. I cannot believe this is not clear to you.
