Andrew Pinski wrote on 28/06/2005 07:08:33: > The first change in GCC which changed signed overflow/wrapping to be > undefined > was added back in 1992 in loop.c. The next change was in 1999 with the > addition of simplify-rtx.c. Why are we talking about this now, instead > of back > when they were added? (note both of these changes were before fwrapv > can into > play). > I don't mind MAX_INT+1 being undefined by gcc. I object to drawing from "undefined" to conclude that is_modulo should be true. This does not make a practical sense. Drawing conclusions from "undefined" can yield absurd results.
- Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in GCC) Michael Veksler
- Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in ... Robert Dewar
- Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 (in ... Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1992 ... Andrew Pinski
- Re: signed is undefined and has been since 1... Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: signed is undefined and has been sin... Andrew Pinski
- Re: signed is undefined and has bee... Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: signed is undefined and has... Robert Dewar
- Re: signed is undefined and... Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: signed is undefined and... Robert Dewar
- Re: signed is undefined and... Gabriel Dos Reis