Re: PATCH RFC: -fstrict-overflow

[Brooks Moses <brooks dot moses at codesourcery dot com>]

Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > It seems to me that the general feeling was in favor of
> > -fstrict-overflow.  I went ahead and committed the patch as follows.
>
> I am against the name of the option containing strict because it is really
> not strict on overflow but closer to the standard.  I am alos don't like
> the strict-aliasing either because it is not strict with respect aliasing but
> rather taking account what the standard says about the standard.

I don't follow that objection.  The OED gives the following applicable 
definitions of "strict":

"Of an art or science, its procedure, etc.: Characterized by rigid 
conformity to rules or postulates."

"Of a law, ordinance, etc., or its execution: Stringent and rigorous in 
its demands or provisions, allowing no evasion."

"Rigorous and severe in rule and discipline, in administering justice, 
etc.; not lax or indulgent."

That sounds exactly like "closer to the standard" to me.  Were you of 
the opinion that it means something different?

- Brooks