On 7/8/2016 2:33 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08.07.2016 21:26, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Where is the reference to Walter's promotion of UB in @safe code?
Only found this, but IIRC, there was another discussion:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/C_compiler_vs_D_compiler_272670.html#N272689
I don't agree with the notion that all UB's can lead to memory corruption.
deadalix's hypothetical fails because "proving it always passes" cannot be done
at the same time as "remove this code path because it is undefined".
I don't agree with the interpretation of UB in C++ that some C++ compiler
authors do for that reason.
