It's not "we didn't think of it", it's literally "the standard has nothing to say about it", which means that any standard-conforming implementation is free to do whatever it wants, meaning that different implementations may handle it differently.

> It's not literal UB it's well known what it compiles down to, every time. (.loop: jmp .loop)

That might be true for a particular version of a particular compiler, but if you assume that it's true for all standard-conforming compilers (now and in the future) then you're making an assumption that is not supported by the standard.

> It's not literal UB it's well known what it compiles down to, every time. (.loop: jmp .loop)

...Uh, the example shown at the literal top of the blog demonstrates precisely the opposite?