[Bug middle-end/48580] missed optimization: integer overflow checks

["joseph at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580

--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-10-05 15:19:01 UTC ---
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, jules at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> I don't much like the idea of using builtins for operations as fundamental as
> integer arithmetic. How about this as a straw-man suggestion: adding new
> qualifiers for "fat" integers-with-flags, somewhat in the spirit of the
> embedded-C fractional/saturating types? So you might have:

The trouble is that the nature of an operation is more a property of the 
operation than of the type - and the proliferation of types for what 
should be operations on normal types is much of the problem with what the 
embedded-C TR does.  You could have pragmas to say that a cumulative flag 
for a particular scope goes in a particular variable, and that normal 
operations have particular overflow semantics in that scope, maybe.