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.
pwdisswordfishq · · focus · HN ↗
slaymaker1907 · · focus · HN ↗
It’s obvious why you want to inline memcpy, but the specialization is more interesting. For example, I’ve seen the compiler optimize a memcpy with a static number of bytes and then use SIMD registers to do the copying with no loop at all. It can even be smart enough to take advantage of memory alignment for this.
rcxdude · · focus · HN ↗