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

[Andrew Pinski]

On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

>
> As I said, if you let user tell you that his loop behaves well, i.e.
> bounds do not rely on wrapping semantics, and yet he writes his loop to
> deceive the compiler, then he loses.  Let him choose his own poinson,
> don't think you have to choose it for him.

They already can, that is what -fwrapv is for.  If you ignore that 
there is
already a flag for this, then fine but there is already a flag for 
this, just
like there is already a flag for disabling C/C++ aliasing rules.

-- Pinski