Wow, that's a very torturous reading of a specific line in a standard. And it doesn't really matter what Yodaiken thinks this line means because standard is written by C implementers for (mostly) C implementers. So if C compile writers think this line means they can use UB for optimizing purposes, then that's what it means.

Yeah, I know it breaks the common illusion among the C programmers that they're "close to the bare metal", but illusions should be dispersed, not indulged. The C programmers program for the abstract C machine which is then mediated by the C compilers into machine code the way the implementers of C compilers publicly documented.

Yeah, this is basically Sovereign Citizen-tier argumentation: through some magic of definitions and historical readings and arguing about commas, I prove that actually everyone is incorrect. That's not how programming languages work! If everyone for 10+ years has been developing compilers with some definition of undefined behavior, and all modern compilers use undefined behavior in order to drive optimization passes which depend on those invariants, there is no possible way to argue that they're wrong and you know the One True C Programming Language interpretation instead.

Moreover, compiler authors don't just go out maliciously trying to ruin programs through finding more and more torturous undefined behavior for fun: the vast majority of undefined behavior in C are things that if a compiler wasn't able to assume were upheld by the programmer would inhibit trivial optimizations that the programmer also expects the compiler to be able to do.

Compiler writers are free to make whatever intentional choices they want and document them. UB is especially nasty compared to other kinds of bugs because implementors can't/refuse to commit to any specific behavior, not because they've chosen the wrong behaviors.