On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 07:02:49PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > We document that > > a = (int) ((unsigned) b + c) > > is well-defined and given by the wrapping semantics. Does the current > optimizer takes that into account or will it assume b+1 execution times? > I fixed this bug yesterday. Scalar evolutions was assuming it couldn't wrap around.
Diego.
