http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-17 03:14:22 UTC --- True, the language standards seem to distinguish between this and the overflow you get from saying INT_MAX+1. But GCC internals do not make this distinction; in either case, we end up setting TREE_OVERFLOW in force_fit_type_double. Given that, I would prefer to avoid this transformation.
