|
From: | Richard Kenner |
Subject: | Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..." |
Date: | Mon, 01 Jan 2007 07:33:06 EST |
> the seemingly prevalent attitude "but it is undefined; but it is not > C" is the opinion of the majority of middle-end maintainers. Does anybody DISAGREE with that "attitude"? It isn't valid C to assume that signed overflow wraps. I've heard nobody argue that it is. The question is how far we go in supporting existing code that's broken in this way.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |