>>> It is now in C++ mainstream and already in C2x draft. >> Then those are not suitable languages for OS implementations. > This battle is lost for C
C is not a language. C is a family of closely related languages. Some of them are suitable for OS implementation. It appears some of the more recent ones are not, but this does not mean the older ones also aren't. Undefined behaviour as a way of describing differences between implementations, things that it limits portability to depend on, is useful. Undefined behaviour as a license-by-fiat for compilers to unnecessarily transform code in unexpected ways is not. Software languages and their compilers exist to serve their users, not the other way around; it is not a compiler's place to take the position of "ha ha, the code you wrote is clear but I can find a way to lawyer it into formally undefined behaviour, so I'm going to transform it into something I know damn well you didn't expect". > RUST is better defined that C and is indeed used in OS development > these days ...so? I don't see how this is related to the rest of the discussion. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
