Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...

On 31.08.24 11:24, Thomas Koenig wrote:

Bernd Linsel <bl1-thispartdoesnotbelonghere@gmx.com> schrieb:

The clang/gcc maintainers' POV violates the first part of Postel's Law:
>

Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.

>
Life would be a lot easier if they just provided a -WUB option that
warns and explains *any* construct that the compiler may regard as UB.

 
Maybe a bit more elaborate:
 
#include <stdio.h>
 
int main()
{
   int i;
   scanf("%d", &i);
   return 0;
}
 
Should this be warned about?

>
[corrected sscanf -> scanf]
Why? This "program" has the purpose to read one line, presumably
containing an integer number, from stdin and ignore it. No UB anywhere.