This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/50066] [4.7 Regression] Bad signed int to unsigned long long conversion
- From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 18:11:56 +0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/50066] [4.7 Regression] Bad signed int to unsigned long long conversion
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-50066-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-08-13 18:11:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 25006
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25006
A patch
GMP code may be buggy. But it works with all other compilers,
including GCC 4.6.0 and older. Is there any particular good
reason to ignore range overflow? This patch checks range
overflow and caused no regressions on Linux/x86.