Re:Memory Safe Inline Assembly
by layer8 on Monday June 22, 2026 @12:19PM
(#48632262)
> translating C's semantics into those of a related language with arbitrary but technically defined behavior instead of having UB
There is no “instead” here. A C implementation defining behavior for certain UB still falls under what a C implementation is allowed to do for UB.
I don’t know if Fil-C is a fully conforming C implementation, but it could well be. In what way is it nonconforming that would warrant describing it as implementing “a related language” and not C?
There is no “instead” here. A C implementation defining behavior for certain UB still falls under what a C implementation is allowed to do for UB.
I don’t know if Fil-C is a fully conforming C implementation, but it could well be. In what way is it nonconforming that would warrant describing it as implementing “a related language” and not C?