On Sunday, 14 May 2017 at 12:07:40 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 14.05.2017 11:42, Patrick Schluter wrote:
But completely removing the code when one encounters for
example:
if(val+1 == INT_MIN) is simply nuts.
Why? This is simple dead code elimination. The programmer
clearly must have known that it is dead code and the compiler
trusts the programmer.
The programmer would _never_ break that trust and make a
program evaluate INT_MAX+1 !
Well, actually, it makes sense to issue a warning in C.
But in C++ it makes less sense since meta-programming easily can
generate such code without breaking the semantics of the program.
The corollary to 'trust the programmer' is 'blame the
programmer'. Don't use C if you want to blame the compiler.
Oh well, there are lots of different checkers for C, so I guess
it would be more like "don't blame the compiler, blame the
verifier".
