The example works because the compiler has no way to know that the programmer intends the memory to be filled by e.g. a DMA transfer from a device.
If a programmer could communicate this idea to the compiler, it would be somehow safer to write such code. There is a big difference between intentionally reading what looks like initialized memory, and doing so by an oversight.
It's not so much about 'intent'. The spec simply says this operation is undefined behavior. You could have a compiler that you could somehow inform "please just define this behavior as reading whatever is in memory there". But that supports the original point of the article, that plain ISO C is not suitable for OS programming.
Which is why many that learn "my compiler C" than get surprised by what happens when their code runs somewhere else and then most likely blame the other compiler instead of blaming themselves by not learning the differences between ISO C and their daily compiler.
If a programmer could communicate this idea to the compiler, it would be somehow safer to write such code. There is a big difference between intentionally reading what looks like initialized memory, and doing so by an oversight.