Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 03:12:11 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
 
[...]
 

Would be nice, say, if there were semi-standard compiler macros for
various things:
  Endianess (macros exist, typically compiler specific);
    And, apparently GCC and Clang can't agree on which strategy to
use. Whether or not the target/compiler allows misaligned memory
access; If set, one may use misaligned access.
  Whether or not memory uses a single address space;
    If set, all pointer comparisons are allowed.
>
[elaborations on the above] 

 
I suppose it's natural for hardware-type folks to want features
like this to be part of standard C.  In a sense what is being
asked is to make C a high-level assembly language.  But that's
not what C is.  Nor should it be.

Why not?
I don't see practical need for all those UBs apart from buffer
overflow. More so, I don't see the need for UB in certain limited
classes of buffer overflows.

struct {
 char x[8]
 int  y;
} bar;
bar.y = 0; bar.x[8] = 42;

IMHO, here behavior should be fully defined by implementation. And
in practice it is. Just not in theory.