The general cost over a several large codebases has been observed to be minimal. Yet, there are specific scenarios where the costs are real and observable. For those rare cases, an explicit opt-in to risky behavior makes sense.
The general cost over a several large codebases has been observed to be minimal
Is this unexpected? A large code base has a lot of other things and it is normal that such changes will be a rounding error. There are lots of other bottlenecks that will just overwhelm such a such change. I don't think "it is not affecting large code bases as much", you can use that argument for pretty much anything that adds an overheadNot to mention if you change every int a to int a=0 right now, in those code bases, a=0 part will likely to be optimized away since that value is not being (shouldn't be) used at all and likely will be overwritten in all code paths