> It seems the C committee at some point makes things harder than they should

This seems like entirely the wrong way of looking at it to me. The C committee is not trying to make things harder than they should be, but they’re really just a committee in charge of C. Their goal isn’t to make C into some kind of beautiful safe language, it’s just to provide incremental improvements to C for the benefit of people stuck using it for whatever reason.

Like, the C committee isn’t trying to stop you from retiring C. They’re just trying to help out the people who aren’t retiring C, for whatever reason—which could be toolchain availability (lots of architectures out there, you may only have a C compiler for some), could be so they can work with a legacy codebase, could be that some other tooling or process they have works with C (the various “safe C” / analyzable subsets or formal verification processes).

WG14 could take care about improving the language gotchas for safer software, something that all other ISO language groups, including WG21 do bother to do.

However in 40 years they already made their point not to care beyond make C a portable macro assembler with more UB issues than writing in raw Assembly.

C is not even remotely like a macro assembler. I get why people make the comparison, but the more I work with C and assembler, the more I realize that the comparison is facile. The relationship between the C code you write and the machine code which the compiler generates is complicated. If you think of C as a portable assembler, it’s easy to draw the wrong conclusion about how your code will behave. You look at some code and think, “I know how the assembly should look,” and at that point you’ve lost, because of the vast gulf between C and assembly semantics.

The UB issues are not going away. Some people who use C need to get good performance out of it. If you try fixing the UB issues, you end up having to remove optimization passes from your C compilers. That’s just not viable—hence, UB issues are here to say.

The correct thing for the C committee is to make slow, careful improvements to C for the people who are stuck using it. And the correct choice for most people is to stop using C in favor of safer languages.

If you try to have the committee fix the safety problems with C, you’re going to end up with something which neither fast nor safe. If you are stuck using C and need it to be safe, you can use formal methods. If you don’t have the budget for formal methods, you need safety, and you’re stuck on a system which only has a C toolchain, then the alternative is to use something which compiles to C.

I agree that in terms of modern proposals there's a lot of "doing what we can"

However, leaving the overflow check/behavior on the multiplication as "implementation defined" seems like a bad call to me

The fact that signed overflow is undefined is unfortunately something that is necessary for certain optimizations to be valid. You can, for example, try `-fwrapv` or `-ftrapv` on GCC, but if you run through an extensive benchmark suite you’ll see regressions.

Not everyone cares about the benchmarks, but enough do.

...Weren't we talking unsigned though?

I've heard them called museum conservators. : p