alt Hacker NewsUB according to the standard committee is "we didn't think of it". It's not literal UB it's well known what it compiles down to, every time. (.loop: jmp .loop)
Replies
aw1621107 • today at 6:44 PM
> It's not literal UB it's well known what it compiles down to, every time. (.loop: jmp .loop)
...Uh, the example shown at the literal top of the blog demonstrates precisely the opposite?
It's not "we didn't think of it", it's literally "the standard has nothing to say about it", which means that any standard-conforming implementation is free to do whatever it wants, meaning that different implementations may handle it differently.
> It's not literal UB it's well known what it compiles down to, every time. (.loop: jmp .loop)
That might be true for a particular version of a particular compiler, but if you assume that it's true for all standard-conforming compilers (now and in the future) then you're making an assumption that is not supported by the standard.