http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> 2013-05-07 04:25:27 UTC --- Yea, 254.gap is definitely overflowing signed types. I've got changes to make the warnings and -fno-strict-overflow work that I'll put through their paces tomorrow. I think we should twiddle the testcase to verify we don't muck it up when -fno-strict-overflow is active.
