logoalt Hacker News

publicdebatesyesterday at 11:33 PM1 replyview on HN

I understand, but you have to see how you would be considered one of the Standards-Purists that I was talking about, right? If Microsoft makes a guarantee in their documentation about some behavior of UB C code, and this guarantee is dated to about 14 years ago, and I see many credible people on the internet confirming that this behavior does happen and still happens, and these comments are scattered throughout those past 14 years, I think it's safe to say I can rely on that behavior, as long as I'm okay with a little vendor lock-in.


Replies

mirashiitoday at 12:13 AM

> If Microsoft makes a guarantee in their documentation about some behavior of UB C code

But do they? Where?

More likely, you mean that a particular compiler may say "while the standard says this is UB, it is not UB in this compiler". That's something wholly different, because you're no longer invoking UB.

show 1 reply