gcc 3.3 / i386 / -O2 question

[Robert Dewar]

Michael Matz wrote:

> While it's true that with signed arithmetic we are allowed to simply
> break, such behaviour can (and in this case indeed does) point out a real
> problem in the optimizers, so its often a bit too hasty to ignore a
> problem just because the source code is not totally conformant.

Interesting, though to be fair, David a couple of times said that it would
be a good idea to try this code again with unsigned :-)