> From: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Paul Schlie wrote: > >> I too believe I understand your position, however don't believe it's the >> compiler's job to make life for the programmer harder than it need be when >> a program may contain an undefined behavior; but agree it would likely >> always be helpful to for it to point them out when identifiable. > > I really don't care too much about making life harder for the programmer > who originally writes code if it makes it easier for people maintaining > and porting the code down the line. I think it is a good idea if people > writing C know C (substitute any other language you like for C here :-)
It's not clear to me that intentionally altering the semantics of a program as a result of an undefined behavior in any single way is very productive towards that goal, as unless the alternative behavior happens to be caught, it may only likely result in a latent bug which the programmer thought wouldn't occur based on the code specified, and/or the confirmed behavior of the program prior to optimization. However having the compiler point out potentially undefined non-portable expressions seems very useful, especially if it attempts to maintain their semantics through optimization, albeit non-portably.
