This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: The utility of standard's semantics for overflow

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr
Cc: Michael Veksler <VEKSLER at il dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:14:10 -0400
Subject: Re: The utility of standard's semantics for overflow
References: <OFD3D9025B.5DBCC2A3-ON4325702F.002AE087-4325702F.002EEDDD@il.ibm.com> <1120038177.23191.36.camel@mururoa>

Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:

So unless you do arithmetics or combinatorics, most of the uses of
"wide" (ie > 32b) integral types semantically (ie in the programmer's
mind) assume that overflow does not happen in practise in the program.


I think that's probably right. And in the context of this discussion,
what does happen to most programs if an int used with this assumption
overflows? Answer, it's probably a bug, and it is unlikely that
silent wrapping will correspond to correct behavior.

Follow-Ups:
- RE: The utility of standard's semantics for overflow
  - From: Dave Korn

References:
- The utility of standard's semantics for overflow
  - From: Michael Veksler
- Re: The utility of standard's semantics for overflow
  - From: Theodore Papadopoulo

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]