Reading error or not, the ship has sailed long ago. As the article notes, C99 formalized the current UB interpretation. What C89 or K&R said is more just historical curiosity than of any real relevance today. I guess you could construct an argument that gcc should disable some optimizations when invoked with -std=c89, but I doubt anyone really cares at this point enough to justify the maintenance burden.
C is a minefield today, and that is the reality we must live with. You can't turn back time 25 years and change what has happened.
> C is a minefield today, and that is the reality we must live with. You can't turn back time 25 years and change what has happened.
I think it's doable to make some of the UB issues considerably less painful. E.g. define facilities to check for overflow safely, add facilities for explicit wrapping operations.
C is a minefield today, and that is the reality we must live with. You can't turn back time 25 years and change what has happened.