C++26: Trivial infinite loops are no longer undefined behaviour
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
C++26: Trivial infinite loops are no longer undefined behaviour
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
wahern · · focus · HN ↗
That's the epitome of the hidden code downside that Linus and many others dislike about C++. For constructors and destructors it's somewhat unavoidable and not so random, though Rust does better at limiting the blast radius of non-local code, at least in the drop case.
If they didn't want to adopt the C11 rule, the C++ committee should've explored a rule that required the compiler to emit a diagnostic or error for trivial loops (whether as defined by C11 or otherwise), requiring the programmer to explicitly insert ::yield or similar. No hidden code, and less opportunity for the compiler to do surprising things.
The C committee has been rigorously enumerating UB cases in the standard and addressing each case in turn, often by requiring a diagnostic, error, or by turning it into implemention defined behavior. But inserting code like that would be unthinkable.
pbalau · · focus · HN ↗
I think Linus's complain was before there was a c++ standard. An updated version of the complaint would be "this shit is doing too much".
aw1621107 · · focus · HN ↗
In the context of that particular complaint, yes. From what I understand the gist of it is basically that you should be able to tell what is going on by looking at the code locally (i.e., the code is "explicit").
> I think Linus's complain was before there was a c++ standard.
These emails [0]? IIRC those are the most well-known ones and they are from the mid-2000s
[0]: <a href="https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus" rel="nofollow">https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus