> Over the last decade have increasingly abused this idea basically making the spec a land mine of UB and then claiming that UB allows them to do whatever they want, even when the programmer intent is obvious.
That is not an accurate or fair assessment.
However signed integer overflow being undefined behavior is a bit over the top given modern hardware. I'd like to see the C standard adopt a policy of wrapping for signed overflow, then either add new operators or functions for trapping behavior.
Most reasonable hardware has the instructions to trap or branch if add/sub/mul/div overflows or underflows so the checks are very cheap. Unlike the early days, in this day if C made it part of the standard processor manufacturers would simply stop selling CPUs without those features. Same goes for two's-compliment integer representations. They already did the same for 8-bit char/byte; other sizes are no longer supported.
That is not an accurate or fair assessment.
However signed integer overflow being undefined behavior is a bit over the top given modern hardware. I'd like to see the C standard adopt a policy of wrapping for signed overflow, then either add new operators or functions for trapping behavior.
Most reasonable hardware has the instructions to trap or branch if add/sub/mul/div overflows or underflows so the checks are very cheap. Unlike the early days, in this day if C made it part of the standard processor manufacturers would simply stop selling CPUs without those features. Same goes for two's-compliment integer representations. They already did the same for 8-bit char/byte; other sizes are no longer supported.