This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: gcc 3.3 / i386 / -O2 question

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
To: Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>
Cc: 'Luca Benini' <lbenini at csr dot unibo dot it>,'Gerald Pfeifer' <gerald at pfeifer dot com>,'Beschorner Daniel' <Daniel dot Beschorner at facton dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:01:03 -0500
Subject: Re: gcc 3.3 / i386 / -O2 question
References: <NUTMEGbsShdbRMy6wGb0000080c@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>

Dave Korn wrote:

  However as I mentioned, the behaviour of unsigned integers in overflow
conditions IS well defined, and so if the compiler produced code that behaved
differently at -O0 and -O2 when you took that example code and changed "int" to
"unsigned int" everywhere, that *would* be a genuine compiler bug, and one that
would need fixing.


Indeed! In fact I would not even use the term overflow in conjunction with
unsigned, the unsigned semantics is modular, and there is no overlow :-)

References:
- RE: gcc 3.3 / i386 / -O2 question
  - From: Dave Korn

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]