This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
> You chose to not reply to
>
> "
> Re-association is always possible with my idea - you just need to drop from
> 'does not overflow' to 'may overflow' operations (thus in C speak, from
> signed overflow semantics to unsigned overflow semantics) for the
> expression in question. IMHO this should allow all optimizations you
> want from TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE types without actually having them.
> "
>
> So do you agree with that?
I'm not sure what the last sentence means. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou