I, once again, disagree with the premise that UB is a necessary precondition for optimisation, or that it exists to allow for optimisation. You do not need UB to unroll a loop, inline a function, lift an object or computation out of a loop, etc. Moreover, _most_ UB does not assist in optimisation at all.

The two instances where UB allows for optimisation are as follows:

1. The 'signed overflow' UB allows for faster array indexing. By ignoring potential overflow, the compiler can generate code that doesn't check for accidental overflow (which would require masking the array index, recomputing the address on each loop iteration). I believe the better solution here would be to introduce a specific type for iterating over arrays that will never overflow; size_t would do fine, and making signed overflow at least implementation defined, if not outright fully defined, after a suitable period during which compilers warn if you use a too-small type for array indexing.

2. The 'aliasing' UB does away with the need to read/write values to/from memory each time they're used, and is extremely important to performance optimisation.

But the rest? Most of it does precisely nothing for performance. At 'best', the compiler uses detected UB to silently eliminate code branches, but that's something to be feared, not celebrated. It isn't an optimisation if it removes vital program logic, because the compiler could 'demonstrate' that it could not possibly take the removed branch, on account of it containing UB.

The claim in the linked article ("what every C programmer should know") that use of uninitialized variables allows for additional optimisation is incorrect. What it does instead is this: if the compiler see you declare a variable, and then reading from it before writing to it, it has detected UB, and since the rule is that "the compiler is allowed to assume UB does not occur", use that as 'evidence' that that code branch will never occur and can be eliminated. It does not make things go faster; it makes them go _wrong_.

Undefined behaviour, ultimately, exists for many reasons: because the standards committee forgot a case, because the underlying platforms differ too wildly, because you cannot predict in advance what the result of a bug may be, to grandfather in broken old compilers, etc. It does not, in any way, shape, or form, exist _in order to_ enable optimisation. It _allows_ it in some cases, but that is, and never was, not the goal.

Moreover, the phrasing of "the compiler is allowed to assume that UB does not occur" was originally only meant to indicate that the compiler was allowed to emit code as if all was well, without introducing additional tests (for example, to see if overflow occurred or if a pointer was valid) - clearly that would be very expensive or downright infeasible. Unfortunately, over time this has enabled a toxic attitude to grow that turns minor bugs into major disasters, all in the name of 'performance'.

The two bullet points towards the end of the article are both true: the compiler SHOULD NOT behave like an adversary, and the compiler DOES NEED license to optimize. The mistake is thinking that UB is a necessary component of such license. If that were true, a language with more UB would automatically be faster than one with less. In reality, C++ and Rust are roughly identical in performance.