From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vasudev Kamath To: Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan References: <1448274004.1751482.447419065.2BE466C4@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:50:46 +0530 In-Reply-To: <1448274004.1751482.447419065.2BE466C4@webmail.messagingengine.com> (Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan's message of "Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:50:04 +0530") Message-ID: <87egfhotbl.fsf@copyninja.info> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] Undefined Behaviour in C Topicbox-Message-UUID: 76d081dc-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan writes: > Had been reading the SOSP paper: > > > and this blog post that proposes a simpler C: > I started reading the paper and its interesting. I didn't knew till date how optimizations really worked and why they were considered harmful. Yet to read the blog. > I wonder how Plan 9 C compiler, which is a non-ANSI compliant compiler, > treats those parts that the ANSI C standard treats as undefined. No idea. But Brantley Coile might be able to answer, most of his article he mentions compiler won't do any magic, I assume those magic are meant for the optimizations. Of course others from 9fans/9front might have answers but that name came to my mind as I read some recent article where he mentioned about plan9 compilers.