On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 10:16 AM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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?
>

Apologies; reading "none of the developers of that implementation have the
expertise to fix the optimizer bug" looks like a personal attack to me. I
was not expecting a public self-flagellation without that context.