Might a -native-semantics switch, forcing native target optimization semantics, be reasonable?

[Robert Dewar]

Paul Schlie wrote:

>As although C/C++ define some expressions as having undefined semantics;
>it would seem desirable to be able to conveniently force GCC to presume
>a target's true native semantics in lieu of presuming their being undefined.
>  
>
As a general principle this is completely meaningless, since it presumes 
an obvious mapping
from C++ semantics to the "target's true native semantics" [a pretty 
meaningless phrase].

So this only makes sense for very specific cases of undefinedness, and 
you have to very clearly
state what you are suggesting for that particular case.

>(i.e. Enable a target to define it's native overflow, null-dereference, etc.
>semantics, which may be optionally utilized as the basis of optimization.)
>  
>
I assume you are misusing i.e. here to mean "for example", but even so, 
these examples are not
particularly useful.