On 4/24/08, Robert C. Seacord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are referring to VU#694123, this refers to an optimization that > removes checks pointer arithmetic wrapping. The optimization doesn't > actually eliminate the wrapping behavior; this still occurs. It does, > however, eliminate certain kinds of checks (that depend upon undefined > behavior).
How can you hold the compiler responsible for code that depends on undefined behavior? The behavior is undefined, therefore you CANNOT depend on it. If you buy a hammer that says on it "for use in hammering nails," and you use it to hammer in a screw, and it fails miserably (as hammering screws is undefined behavior), is it the hammer manufacturer's fault for not telling you about every single possible scenario in which a hammer cannot be used?
