alt Hacker News> The interesting thing here is the Undefined Behavior (UB), well... actually two UBs, thanks to which there are three possible correct answers: 11, 12 and 13.
No, if you invoke undefined behavior any result at all is possible.
Replies
bombcar • yesterday at 6:47 PM
I feel we need another category - unspecified behavior. I think everyone would agree the compiler should putout ONE of those answers and that nasal demons would be out of spec.
The problem is that it’s not specified which should be picked, but all pick something.
➕ show 3 replies
Hey! Author here :)
So let me start by saying that that blog post was written was 15 years ago and I don't even remember the details of it and what I've written there. But, I have a hot-take on this topic you've touched on!
From a programmer perspective, you are absolutely right. The behaviour is undefined, end of discussion. A programmer should never rely on what they observe as the effective behaviour of an UB. A programmer must avoid creating situations in code that could result in the execution flow venturing into the areas of UB. And - per C and C++ standards - results of UB can be anything (insert the old joke about UB formatting one's disk being a formally correct behaviour).
However, I'm a security researcher, and from the security point of view - especially on the offensive side - we need to know and understand the effective behaviours of UBs. This is because basically all "low-level" vulnerabilities in C/C++ are formally effects of UBs. As such, for the security crowd, it still makes sense to investigate, understand, and discuss the actual observed effects of UBs, especially why a compiler does this, what are the real-world actual variants of generated code (if any) for a given UB for this and other compilers, how can this be abused and exploited, and so on.
My point being - there are two sides to this coin.