This makes no sense to me

If I think about asm:

function1:

    (do stuff)

    jp function1

    ret

    (other stuff)

    ret

    call function1

    call function2

Oh yeah and TFA also goes with:

> The funny bit is that C got this right.(...) but C included one more rule: loops whose controlling expression is a constant expression may not be assumed to terminate.

Well, duh! A broken clock is right twice a day it seems

With UB the compiler has no particular requirement to emit the 'ret'. (or, in the example, anything at all for the function)