OMG, that first link is golden. It starts off by an email from DJB no less, whic...

OMG, that first link is golden. It starts off by an email from DJB no less, which includes this snippet:

    I should note that this plan, throwing away gcc and clang in favor of a 
    boring C compiler, isn't the only possible response to these types of 
    security holes. Here are several other responses that I've seen: 
    
       * Attack the messenger. "This code that you've written is undefined, 
         so you're not allowed to comment on compiler behavior!" The most 
         recent time I saw this, another language lawyer then jumped in to 
         argue that the code in question _wasn't_ undefined---as if this 
         side discussion had any relevance to the real issue.

And to top it off, below Kurt Roeckx explains to someone what part of the problem is:

    The undefined behaviour of C is deliberate so that compilers can 
    make optimazations.  They assume you write code that only has 
    defined meaning and generate code for that defined meaning.  That 
    means for instance that if you add 2 signed integers they're going 
    to assume it doesn't overflow and then for instance make 
    assumptions based on that on wether other code ever going to be 
    executed or not.

Niiice. This exact scenario is what happened and it's given as an example of problematic optimization of undefined behavior by compilers. If I felt it was pointless to really expect any change before, I definitely do now.

I'm definitely favoriting your comment so I can find it easily later.