Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
Mon Mar 5 21:16:00 GMT 2007
Eric Botcazou wrote on 03/05/07 15:59:
>> Then it should also be disabled by default also in 4.1.3 and should
>> have been disabled in 4.1.2 which was only released last month so
>> there is no reason why it has to be disabled in 4.2.0 if everyone is
>> using 4.1 anyways.
> VRP has become more aggressive in 4.2.x than in 4.1.x though.
Agreed. I don't see the need to backport this functionality to 4.1. It
has been out for quite some time now, used in various distros and we
have not been flooded with requests from users.
While this represents a new feature in 4.2, I don't think it's too
risky. Whatever failures are triggered should be easy to identify and fix.
I personally don't like this feature very much as it may represent a
slippery slope into forcing us to warn in every optimization that
exploits undefined aspects of the standard. But user pressure obviously
exists, so *shrug*.
More information about the Gcc