News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on RFC: C++ Buffer Hardening. Parent comment

Re:RFC: C++ Buffer Hardening by saagarjha on Thursday October 06, 2022 @02:50AM (#33105222)
Much that is UB deserves to be defined. And some that is defined deserves to be UB. Can you make it illegal? Then do not be too eager to deal out behaviors in standardization.

I don't actually oppose, in the long run, slowly picking some behaviors and changing them to be standardized. But I do vehemently oppose many of the suggestions that are brought up. The kinds of things that should be moved out of being undefined are things like "you named your function isfoo" and not "you passed NULL to memset".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:RFC: C++ Buffer Hardening by olliej on Thursday October 06, 2022 @04:05AM (#33105726)
> And some that is defined deserves to be UB.

Can you provide an example of currently specified behaviour that should be UB?

To be very clear I am using specification language here. "Unspecified behaviour" is very much not "undefined behaviour".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:RFC: C++ Buffer Hardening by flohofwoe on Thursday October 06, 2022 @04:35AM (#33105956)
It's an LoTR joke: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement"
[ Parent | on HN ]