Thread

1. ErikCorry · 1789751780 · focus · HN ↗

   > [The C rule was rejected for C++ because it] could inhibit useful optimizations

   If be curious if these are the sorts of optimizations I would find useful to the point where I would be happy to pay the price of this annoying new behaviour.

   Or are they just the sorts of optimizations that a compiler writer finds useful who is engaged in a multi year career-defining pissing contest with a competing team?

   Don't get me wrong, I have myself engaged in a multi year career-defining pissing contest with a competing team. It's fun. But let's not kid ourselves that it's for the users' sake.

   1. rcxdude · 1789778346 · focus · HN ↗

      The bizarre thing is that the C rule is pretty deliberately narrowly scoped to still enable those optimizations, and the new C++ definition pretty much follows it except for this extra bit they tagged on that no-one was asking for.
   2. cryptonector · 1789832710 · focus · HN ↗

      They are not useful enough for this, no.
   3. cryptonector · 1789832739 · focus · HN ↗

      Repeal the compiler optimizer dev employment act.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.