I suppose that's true, yes. My point was more that your compiler is not hitting a line of code and saying "I know this is or is not UB" because it can not do that in the general case - it is definitely incorrect to say it is 'proving' this. Would you consider that an accurate representation?
> My point was more that your compiler is not hitting a line of code and saying "I know this is or is not UB" because it can not do that in the general case
I think it's still a (cause of) misunderstanding. For the compiler, UBs are situations which axiomatically can not occur. "This is UB" is not a concept, because the compiler assumes at all point that UBs can not occur.
The compiler doesn't go "oh you're dereferencing a pointer which may be null, fuck you", it goes "you're dereferencing a pointer so it can't be null, and thus I can remove anything assuming possible nullability".
> The compiler doesn't go "oh you're dereferencing a pointer which may be null, fuck you", it goes "you're dereferencing a pointer so it can't be null, and thus I can remove anything assuming possible nullability".
