On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 11:03, Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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.

..and in case it's unclear, I designed that dirty hack. Who am I
attacking personally? Myself?