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

[Robert Dewar]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 
>    for (int i = min; i < max; ++i)
>        ....
> 
> and i, min and max don't change in the body, no matter what you think
> of C's general "for" not being a FOR loop, the above is a FOR loop.

But this normal paradigm for representing a FOR loop does not work for
all possible ranges, that's precisely the trouble!