Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Examples you listed would be better made "implementation defined." ie use RFC language with "Programmers should avoid shifting by more than the bitwidth, compilers should produce an implementation defined result, but may specify a trap in this circumstance"

What's your opinion of What every compiler writer should know about programmers? http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/kps2015/proceedings/KPS_201...




My opinion is that we need a What every programmer should know about compilers essay.

I could take that document more seriously if it didn't make compiler writers out to be evil.


I don't understand why the entire operation has to be undefined behaviour. Why not just say that the bitwidth may be truncated to an undefined number of bits?


On x86 the shift only looks at the leftmost 5 bits, so 1<<33 is 2. Whereas elsewhere 1<<33 may be 0. It wouldn't be strange if a platform decided to have 1<<33 throw an overflow fault. The key is that this choice should really be up to the platform, not the compiler




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: