https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #12 from Martin Uecker <muecker at gwdg dot de> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10) > Btw, with -ftrapv it would mean we cannot re-order any signed arithmetic > with respect to volatile accesses unless we can prove it does not invoke > (undefined, > but -ftrapv makes it implementation defined) signed overflow. Yes, and I think this would be desirable too. For example, if you safetly turn off a machine with a volatile store, you want a later logic error in unrelated code not to be able to prevent this.
