Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

[Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>]

> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Robert Dewar wrote:
>>> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>> I'm sure no matter what argument i come up with, you'll just explain it
>>> away.  The reality is the majority of our users seem to care more about
>>> whether they have to write "typename" in front of certain declarations
>>> than they do about signed integer overflow.
>>
>> I have no idea how you know this, to me ten reports seems a lot for
>> something like this.
>
> Not compared to the number of type-based aliasing "bugs" reported.

- as aliasing optimizations are typically more subtle, it's understandable
  how these may continue to be reported.

- however as overflow optimizations are somewhat more obviously identified
  as being related to GCC's arguably somewhat notoriously overzealous
  leveraging of this form of "undefined behavior" at higher levels of
  optimization regardless of the factual behavior of target machines;
  it's understandable that folks after a while simply stop reporting these
  as "bugs" (especially as this "optimization" has been historically so
  vocally defended by the few as being proper, regardless of arguably
  reasonable expectations that it not be included in any generically
  specified level optimization by default to minimize "surprise").