throwaway25173

I don't understand why you say "it cannot emit a compiler error" -- just because something is allowed doesn't mean it's impossible to emit a compiler error for it (c.f. -Werror). Why can't there be a different option to emit a compiler error whenever -fsanitize=undefined would cause the compiler to add program-crashing code? Personally I would definitely use such an option as I can't imagine a purpose for having undefined behavior anywhere in my code. If I have a function that's never being called then I either forgot to call that function somewhere, or I have a useless function that I should remove from my code. Edit: or perhaps I'm implementing a library -- regardless, I can't imagine why I would want to compile successfully with undefined behavior in my code.

As a frequent smoker, I'm very curious about this. I'm a grad student but I've interned at Google Mountain View a couple times. At Google I had a couple intern friends who also smoked but I would absolutely NEVER consider admitting to being a frequent user among coworkers I wasn't outside-of-work friends with, as none of them ever seemed to talk about having drug experiences (other than alcohol/caffeine) so I feared they'd think less of me for it. I'm sure most were likely in favor of marijuana legalization as most of their politics seemed to go that way, but none of them would ever openly admit to using it regularly. (This seems similar to the attitude on HN, hence why I'm on a throwaway account while admitting to be a frequent smoker.) As such, I found myself agreeing with GP, that the article seemed quite off-base. But of course this is definitely all anecdotal evidence - I wouldn't be surprised if there were teams even at Google where people openly admit to smoking weed regularly.