On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 11:01, Peter Bindels <dascandy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 9:55 AM Ville Voutilainen via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> You're jumping into a conjecture a bit there. :) I'm not saying that
>> we would want those unsound optimizations to be conforming. But as far
>> as I understand,
>> they are not conforming anyway. Clang doesn't perform them, and didn't
>> need P2900 to avoid them. GCC's optimizer has a bug, with or without
>> P2900.
>> The GCC contracts implementation performs a dirty hack to work around
>> that problem by hoodwinking the optimizer to not see the terminate()
>> call,
>> by wrapping it in a wrapper function attributed with [[gnu::noipa]],
>> because none of the developers of that implementation have the
>> expertise to fix the optimizer bug.
>
>
> Don't make personal attacks. This is uncalled for.

What the hell are you talking about? :-O I am *ONE* of those
developers, and I'm describing the situation accurately.
We have talked about this among said developers, and every single one
of us three quite soundly agrees
that we do not have said expertise.