http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-06
10:33:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The combination -fwrapv -ftrapv is not particularly meaningful; it ought
> to act exactly the same as -ftrapv (i.e. -ftrapv should override any
> previous -fwrapv, and vice versa; -fwrapv -fno-trapv should mean -fwrapv
> and -ftrapv -fno-wrapv should mean -ftrapv, as at present).
I suppose the new Negative() .opt file annotation cannot cover this?
Internally we probably should have a single enum that enumerates all
valid integer overflow behaviors (what about the weak -f[no-]strict-overflow)?
