http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
--- Comment #19 from Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com> 2013-03-06 16:18:50 UTC --- Those tests are more or less the whole point of the strict-overflow warning. -Wstrict-overflow exists to have an optional warning that tells you when you may run into trouble. For a warning of this type it's much better to have a false positive than a false negative. A false positive is just annoying. A false negative causes you to miss a potential bug in the program. Sorry you've put so much time into this, but I don't see how it could be acceptable to have a false negative on a case like Wstrict-overflow-12.c.
