RE: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?

[Nicholas Nethercote <njn at cs dot utexas dot edu>]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dave Korn wrote:

> > There was recently a very long thread about the overflow behaviour of
> > signed integers in C.  Apparently this is undefined according to the C
> > standard.  I searched the standard on this matter, and while I did find
> > some paragraphs that described how unsigned integers must wrap around upon
> > overflow, I couldn't find anything explicit about signed integers.

Dave, Nathan and Paul:  thanks for the quick replies.

The difference between signed and unsigned integer overflow is a little 
unclearly expressed, I think.

3.4.3/3 says:

  "EXAMPLE  An example of undefined behavior is the behavior on integer
   overflow"

6.5/5 says:

  "If an _exceptional condition_ occurs during the evaluation of an
   expression (that is, if the result is not mathematically defined or not
   in the range of representable values for its type), the behavior is
   undefined."

These two paragraphs would seem to indicate that overflow is undefined for 
both signed and unsigned integers.

But then 6.2.5 para 9, sentence 2 says:

  "A computation involving unsigned operands can never overflow, because a
   result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
   type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
   value that can be represented by the resulting type."

Which requires that unsigned ints must wrap on overflow.  (Actually, I 
guess it defines "overflow" such that unsigned ints never "overflow", so 
3.4.3/3 and 6.5/5 don't apply!)

But I think the paragraphs together are good enough to communicate that: 
unsigned ints must wrap on overflow, signed ints need not.  Thanks again 
for your help.

N