[PATCH] Clarify that -fwrapv covers all signed arithmetic overflow

[Joseph Myers]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> Can you suggest a wording for "if the GNU C language definition changes
> [which, no matter how unlikely, is explicitly not ruled out by the
> manual] -fwrapv will be extended to signed shifts, and shifts of
> negative numbers would return A*2^B whenever the result fits in the type"?

I don't think we can usefully say how a hypothetical change in one area 
would or would not affect a particular option.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com