Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com> writes:

> 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 gather you are saying here that it is OK with you to backport
-fstrict-overflow/-Wstrict-overflow to 4.2.

> 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*.

Yes, the overflow case, and the strict aliasing case, is clearly a
problem with real existing code, and is a problem for real users.

Ian