https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80138
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I think that including -Wstrict-overflow in -Wall is a mistake given it is a warning that assumes you assume signed overflow wraps and then tells you the points where the compiler assumed otherwise. But nowadays not all (-Wall) people assume that signed overflow wraps. Implementation-wise I'd also rather alias -fno-strict-overflow to -fwrapv... (and remove -Wstrict-overflow entirely). -Wstrict-overflow is _not_ warning about cases where GCC somehow computed that signed arithmetic (might) overflow. (that's IMHO impossible without very many false positives)
