This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, James Dennett wrote:
> Therefore, a case can be made that *for an implementation
> in which a type has no trap values*, an indeterminate
> value must correspond to some specific value. In other
> words: reading an uninitialized int is undefined behavior
> only if int includes trap representations in a given
> implementation. Otherwise, all we have is an unspecified
> (but valid) value, which is a common assumption.
>
> I'm not sure that I like this conclusion, but I've not
> seen a really good argument against it.
DR#260 seems clear enough that indeterminate values may be treated
distinctly from determinate values including randomly changing at any
time.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_260.htm
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com