This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
> Well, this goes back to the question what TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE semantics
> are ;) I guess it would be a sort-of "sticky" 'does not overflow'
> flag? That is even after any possible re-association no operation does
> overflow?
Yes.
> What happens if you re-associate (A +/o B) +/s C (the first +/o might
> overflow, the second +/s is the "sticky" one)?
I presume that the FE should make sure this cannot happen, but /s should trump
anything else in the end.
> From the past discussion we are still waiting for a testcase where the
> reassoication in question (the one that initially provoked all these
> discussions) matters.
Well, if you think that the transformation at stake in fold-const.c is totally
useless, why not simply get rid of the entire code?
--
Eric Botcazou