> Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away, > -fwrapv broken > >> Especially you as the author of code in question > >I did not write this code, I just know of it. > > You did: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27257#c2
Actually there are two different code, one I wrote which is does folding of a-10 > 0 into a>10 and other code which folds a-10>a into true, I wrote the first one. > >So it is a trade off, break existing code or go by the standard. We > > I'm actually for "go by the standard", but, like I said, > core technology, legacy codebase, should deserve a little > bit more attention, especially if it's security relevant. What is core technology? Linux kernel does exactly the same as GCC except there they don't do many bug fixes releases at all. in fact they only do major releases. Yes you could consider 2.16.20 a minor release bug considering a lot changed from 2.16.19, like PS3 support. Binutils on the other hand does less releases than either, though they will do a minor (bug fix) release if needed, though sometimes newer binutils is needed to support newer hardware, that is true of GCC also. Do you want to backport the SPU port to 3.4.0, I don't think so, it depends on bug fixes and other new internal features in GCC. -- Pinski
