On 2016-04-13 12:40:39 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes ("Re: Packaging of static libraries"): > > Note that by default, shared libraries would still be used, so that > > this would affect only users with specific applications, who would > > want to optimize as much as possible. > > This assumption, that someone using static libraries wants to > "optimizse as much as possible" (ie, that they would prefer a fast > non-working program to a slow working one) is completely unfounded.
For libraries with a good testsuite (good coverage...) and checked with an UB sanitizer, the program would be working. At least the remaining bugs should not be related to UB. > IMO we should be compiling almost all our code with what you are > calling `UB sanitisation' and what I would call `traditional > semantics'. Yes, especially for software dealing with external data (e.g. web browsers, mail software, etc.), but for computations that need to run for weeks / months / years, full optimization is important (after doing tests with UB sanitization). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)