------- Comment #54 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 01:14 ------- (In reply to comment #53) > I read all this and the mailing list thread with great interest, > however I think there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning: > > C90 6.2.1.2 / C99 6.3.1.3 defines signed integer overflow > as "implementation-defined behaviour", which is something completely > different than "undefined behaviour".
Those sections are not about singed integer overflow but conversion between the types which is implementation defined as you shown. If you look at what is being descibed here is conversion between types but overflow. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
