Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

"Andrew Pinski" <pinskia@gmail.com> writes:

> On 05 Mar 2007 12:00:20 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> > This would be a new feature for 4.2, of course.  Is it OK to do the
> > backport?
> 
> Way too late.  Didn't Mark say he wanted to release a prelease soon?

If Mark agrees with you, then I'm unfortunately going to have to lobby
to disable VRP by default in 4.2.  I don't want to do that, but as
we've seen in the signed overflow thread from a couple of months ago,
reasonable users are surprised and disturbed by gcc 4.2's current
behaviour.  As you know, Paul Eggert has proposed having autoconf
automatically pass -fwrapv when compiling with gcc.  I think that
would be extremely unfortunate.  Disabling VRP by default will be the
lesser of two evils.


> Also isn't there still some regressions associated still with this change?
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00120.html> for the reference of
> the regressions.

That one is already fixed, I believe.

Ian