Why? Just for this edge case? It could be faster and/or allow smaller code size to allow this to be undefined.
Undefined is also different from "depends on the compiler", because which behavior is chosen can even depend on the circumstances, whatever code appears before and/or after it.
That said, UB in code, such as this example of ordering of reads of volatile parameters being undefined, does not automatically mean that code that uses it is bad. It may very well be that the function being called doesn't misbehave either way.
That’s the point of the whole article. It’s not worth the speed gain to have a language that nobody can safely use because you can’t really prevent UB when you write it.
> It may very well be that the function being called doesn't misbehave either way.
The function being good or bad has nothing to do with the UB. The UB occurs before the function is called.
To move forward, I suggest thinking less about the implementation details and more about the concepts around your approach in this system.
For example a database storing files accessible remotely by multiple users is really a file server and can be implemented in multiple ways. And that's not the problem you're trying to solve here.
Depending on where your sandboxes live, a bind or network mount and a gitwatcher outside of the sandbox would accomplish something very similar with less customization.
You mentioned not having a solution for concurrency. So think about that first, without limiting yourself to a single implementation.
Maybe the storage should not be per file, but be a knowledge graph that is presented as a file to the LLM in the sandbox. Concurrent mutations in knowledge graphs may be easier to solve, especially with the help of LLMs.
Or perhaps it starts to work well already by simply showing the git merge conflicts to an LLM and having it reconcile the separate writes. Maybe even let it "post feedback" to the LLMs in the container, when a concurrent write has happened to a memory or skill to tell it "hey while you were working I also learned this potentially related update".
There is a disconnect in ownership between roads and sidewalks that makes it all very political: "Sidewalks in front of homes can be a source of puzzlement over just who or what owns them. Generally, each state sets its own laws about ownership of property, including sidewalks in front of homes and buildings. Certain states say that sidewalks are owned by the cities, towns or other municipalities having jurisdiction. In California, for example, sidewalks in front of homes and businesses are owned by their municipalities, but their upkeep is to be handled by those homes and businesses."
Systemd is the hammer and the problem looks like a nail to the systemd developers.
In this case systemd seems to be reinventing process groups, in a totally different way, instead of fixing whatever the reason is why GUI sessions don't use session leaders.
So it's pretty obvious there really is a problem that needs to be fixed, and apparently so far nobody else has made a real or successful attempt to do so.
Wikipedia disagrees with that:
"The term "brutalism" was originally coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth in Uppsala, designed in 1949 by his contemporaries Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm.[citation needed] He originally used the Swedish-language term nybrutalism (new brutalism), which was picked up by a group of visiting English architects, including Michael Ventris. In England, the term was further adopted by architects Alison and Peter Smithson.[3][4] The term gained wide currency when the British architectural historian Reyner Banham used it in the title of his 1966 book, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?, to characterise a somewhat recently established cluster of architectural approaches, particularly in Europe.[4]"
Absolutely go for it! Post it even if you feel uncertain about it, just be clear about that, and about what your patch is trying to achieve, when the unexpected behaviour happens, and try to include a way for others to reproduce/investigate (as simple as possible, perhaps a program that demonstrates the bug). Also be clear about how you feel about whether or not the patch is the right approach and about what you would like list members to do with it (are you looking to confirm that what you're seeing is a real kernel bug, or a misunderstanding, or an application bug, and/or are you looking for help solving the bug/issue you're seeing, and/or are you looking to get it merged, etc). Can you demonstrate/quantify how your patch improves/fixes things, etc.
Ghosting is with three keys pressed: If there is a key A that is in the same row as a key B plus and also in the same column as a key C, then a fourth key (the 'ghost') appears to be pressed in the column of key B and the row of key C due to the shorting of the rows and columns, also in your scheme.
There are no columns in this design. The behaviour you're describing can't occur since this isn't a 2d matrix of keys. The keys are grouped such that putting voltage on an input pin will result in an output voltage on many pins depending on which keys are pressed at the time.
Undefined is also different from "depends on the compiler", because which behavior is chosen can even depend on the circumstances, whatever code appears before and/or after it.
That said, UB in code, such as this example of ordering of reads of volatile parameters being undefined, does not automatically mean that code that uses it is bad. It may very well be that the function being called doesn't misbehave either way.