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

From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert at CS dot UCLA dot EDU>
Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, autoconf-patches at gnu dot org, bug-gnulib at gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:24:45 +0100
Subject: Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
References: <200612300047.kBU0lFwk014817@localhost.localdomain> <87bqlmkui3.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <10612300508.AA08474@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <87psa1izpc.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>

Paul Eggert wrote:

That's great, but GCC has had many other hands stirring the pot.
I daresay a careful scan would come up with many other examples of
undefined behavior due to signed integer overflow.  (No doubt
you'll be appalled by them as well, but there they are.)

That's handwaving, not evidence. Sorry, I'm unconvinced.

Bernd

Follow-Ups:
- Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
  - From: Richard Kenner
- Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
  - From: Eric Blake

References:
- Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
  - From: Paul Eggert
- Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
  - From: Richard Kenner
- Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
  - From: Paul Eggert

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