Re: PATCH RFC: -fstrict-overflow

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> writes:

Ian> It's not clear to me how -ftrapv interacts with signed overflow
Ian> assumptions.  Does -ftrapv mean that signed overflow is undefined?  Or
Ian> does it mean that we may not touch any operation that may overflow?
Ian> I don't know what the original purpose of -ftrapv was.  It was added
Ian> here:
Ian>     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg00607.html
Ian> but that message sheds no light on the goal of the option.

It seems strange to have a feature like this where: nobody seems to
know why it was added, no one knows its precise semantics, and we
aren't even sure it covers all the cases we think it ought to.

How about we remove it?

Tom