Should GCC publish a general rule/warning due to it's default presumption of undefined signed integer overflow semantics?

[Andrew Pinski]

On Jun 30, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> | Really?  You've talked to Stroustrup?
>
> I work with him on daily basis, and as a matter of fact we've discussed
> the heart of this topic of this thread yesterday over lunch.  But, as
> much as I hate argument by authority I could not let this discussion
> goes on the slope it is taking without saying what I understood from
> discussion with him on the topic.  It wasn't meant as a proof.  Just a
> data point.  Of course, it is far preferable he speaks for himself but
> it is hard to have him take part of a debate where extreme abstract
> arguments are more dominant than balance between two apparant
> conflicting goals. And that is, I guess, a wise thing to do just as
> core developers like RTH may have a say on this very issue :-)

But the reason question is why make it an undefined behavior instead of
an implementation defined?  This would have made it clearer instead of
allowing the compiler not document what happens.  Or is C++
just following C here?  In which case it might be better to ask the C
committee why it was done this way and real definition of undefined for
this case?

-- Pinski