> Suddenly rejecting all that code, or making it generate a different > result, would not serve the community/society.
Sure, but that wasn't the issue I was addressing. I was addressing the claim that we allegedly have people writing security- and/or safety-critical software who don't understand the semantics of that language as they relate to safety and security (namely, what overflows do). That's a serious problem. Of course, there's not a whole lot that we as compiler writers can do with it (hence my smiley).
