Fantastic exchange from DConf

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 14 May 2017 at 12:07:40 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 14.05.2017 11:42, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>> But completely removing the code when one encounters for 
>> example:
>> if(val+1 == INT_MIN) is simply nuts.
>
> Why? This is simple dead code elimination. The programmer 
> clearly must have known that it is dead code and the compiler 
> trusts the programmer.
> The programmer would _never_ break that trust and make a 
> program evaluate INT_MAX+1 !

Well, actually, it makes sense to issue a warning in C.

But in C++ it makes less sense since meta-programming easily can 
generate such code without breaking the semantics of the program.

> The corollary to 'trust the programmer' is 'blame the 
> programmer'. Don't use C if you want to blame the compiler.

Oh well, there are lots of different checkers for C, so I guess 
it would be more like "don't blame the compiler, blame the 
verifier".