Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Calling the compiler buggy for not doing what you want when you commit Undefined Behavior is like calling dd buggy for destroying your data when you call it with the wrong arguments.

No, it's like calling dd buggy for deliberately zeroing all your drives when you call it with no arguments.

How did we let pedantic brainless "but muh holy standards!!!1" religious brigading triumph over common sense?

The standards left things undefined in the hopes that the language would be more widely applicable and implementers would give those areas thought themselves and decide the right thing. Not so that compiler writers can become adversarial smartasses. It even suggests that "behaving in a manner characteristic of the environment" is a possible outcome of UB, which is what "the spirit of C" is all about.

In my observations this gross exploitation of UB started with the FOSS compilers, GCC and Clang being the notable examples. MSVC or ICC didn't need to be so crazy, and yet they were very competitive, so I don't believe claims that UB is necessary for optimisation.

The good thing about FOSS is that those in power can easily be changed. Perhaps it's time to fork, fix, and fight back.

> The standards left things undefined in the hopes that the language would be more widely applicable and implementers would give those areas thought themselves and decide the right thing.

That sounds like implementation-defined behavior, not undefined behavior.

Same difference. You still have to think about what's right.

They are different by definition.

> The good thing about FOSS is that those in power can easily be changed. Perhaps it's time to fork, fix, and fight back.

Huzzah! Lead on, then.

I do not think there is a reason to fork. Just contribute. I found GCC community very welcoming. But maybe not come in with an "I need to take back the compiler from evil compiler writers" attitude.

From personal experience, they couldn't care less if they can argue it's "undefined". All they do is worship The Holy Standard. They follow the rules blindly without ever thinking whether it makes sense.

But maybe not come in with an "I need to take back the compiler from evil compiler writers" attitude.

They're the ones who started this hostility in the first place.

If even someone like Linus Torvalds can't get them to change their ways, what chances are there for anyone else?

This was a very good example for the nonconstructive attitude I was talking about.

Okay, so you're not up to making a boringcc compiler from the nine-years old proposal of TFA's author, and you don't believe that it's possible to persuade the C implementers to adopt different semantics, so... what do you propose then? It can be only three things, really: either "stop writing crypto algorithms altogether", or "write them in some different, sane language", or "just business as usual: keep writing them in C while complaining about those horrible implementers of C compilers". But perhaps you have a fourth option?

P.S. "All they do is worship The Holy Standard. They follow the rules blindly without ever thinking whether it makes sense" — well, no. Who do you think writes The Holy Standard? Those compiler folks actually comprise quite a number of the members of JTC1/SC22/WG14, and they are also the ones who actually get to implement that standard. So to quote JeanHeyd Meneide of thephd.dev, "As much as I would not like this to be the case, users – me, you and every other person not hashing out the bits ‘n’ bytes of your Frequently Used Compiler — get exactly one label in this situation: bottom bitch".

> They're the ones who started this hostility in the first place.

"How dare these free software developers not do exactly what I want."

Talk about being entitled. If you can't manage to communicate you ideas in a way that will convince others to do the work you want to see done then you need to either pay (and find someone willing to do the work for payment) or do the work yourself.

I don’t really think there is either, but I figured it was a funny way to present the “there never was anything to prevent you from forking in the first place” argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com