https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/boringcc

As a boring platform for the portable parts of boring crypto software, I'd like to see a free C compiler that clearly defines, and permanently commits to, carefully designed semantics for everything that's labeled "undefined" or "unspecified" or implementation-defined" in the C "standard" (DJ Bernstein)

And yeah I feel this:

The only thing stopping gcc from becoming the desired boringcc is to find the people willing to do the work.

(Because OSH has shopt --set strict:all, which is "boring bash". Not many people understand the corners well enough to disallow them - https://oils.pub/ )

---

And Proposal for a Friendly Dialect of C (2014)

https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1180

Case in point: the article has this somewhere in the example code:

    struct struct s;
    s.member = 42;
    s.other_member = 1138;

If new members are added to the struct, you end up with uninitialized memory. With C99 designated init at least the new members are zero-initialized.

Hmm.

The text following this heading seems to take the opposite view. I suspect this is a typo.

However, I think the heading is accurate as written. The "C is not a high level assembler" crowd, in my view, is making a category error, conflating C itself with an ISO standard and abstract machine concept coming decades later.

By the same token, "C is a high level assembler" is a gross oversimplification.

"C isn't not a high level assembler" indeed.

Inconsistent titles, stuff labelled [TOC].

It might be a work in progress and not really ready to be shared widely.

And so on. Is this a work-in-progress thing not meant for public consumption yet?

[0]: https://bkaradzic.github.io/posts/orthodoxc++/