Yet again someone ignoring the line:
> for which the Standard imposes no requirements.
C89 had no requirements, C99 clarified that the line that followed was non-normative.
The entire premise of this article is flawed.
> for which the Standard imposes no requirements.
C89 had no requirements, C99 clarified that the line that followed was non-normative.
The entire premise of this article is flawed.
See, optimization can do a lot of unexpected things, but it is very difficult in general for the compiler to tell whether a certain application of (say) range analysis to eliminate dead code in a bunch of inlined calls is going to be unexpected. That's exactly the kind of optimization I want a compiler to do; I can write small functions that are as generic as possible yet cover all the edge cases, and then the compiler can find out which edge cases cannot apply in this particular situation.
If the compiler told the user every time it did something, you'd never finish reading the output. Might as well ask the compiler not to optimize at that point.