Nah, thankfully liability legislation is finally happening so folks will actually bother to learn standards and how compilers approach them.

Or eventually face consequences.

Now we are waiting for new legislation and overhaul of the tech system to make your point?

Nah, it is already here depending on the country one lives on, I don't need to make any point.

Also I stand by my comments even if they hurt feelings from people which probably never openened a single copy of ISO standards, not even the table of contents.

Ok, I thought you were telling us we wont get UB until we read papers which are proposals for future standards. If you find any corrections in this thread about existing standards, please comment.

What's upsetting is comments that confidently state inaccurate or clearly wrong statements, thereby spreading misconceptions

> What's upsetting is comments that confidently state inaccurate or clearly wrong statements, thereby spreading misconceptions

The bulk of the people in this thread clearly have no grasp of what UB is, even though they are very vocal in the way they parrot their misconceptions and outright absurdities. They would never write half the absurd and misguided claims they did if they were even aware the standards explicitly use the term "non-portable" to define UB.