On: A new fascinating Linux kernel vulnerability

[modeless]

GCC's code isn't incorrect. As per the C standard, after you've dereferenced a NULL pointer then all behavior is undefined. If GCC emitted code that launched ICBMs after a NULL pointer dereference, that wouldn't violate the spec either.

The real WTF here is that people are still building "secure" software in a language where programmer mistakes cause undefined behavior...

[bartwe → modeless]

So why isn't gcc throwing big warnings and errors about dead code paths?

[modeless → bartwe]

My guess is that GCC's dead code warning is produced in a pass that runs before the optimizer and isn't smart enough to prove the code is dead.