--- Comment #11 from 0xe2 dot 0x9a dot 0x9b at gmail dot com 2010-02-17
17:52 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Please stop reopening. 6.3.1.3 is about casts between integer types.
> Signed integer overflow is even mentioned as an example of undefined behavior
> in 3.4.3.
W
--- Comment #8 from 0xe2 dot 0x9a dot 0x9b at gmail dot com 2010-02-17
14:16 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Where the compiler always chooses some particular implementation is
> implementation defined behavior, not undefined behavior. Undefined behavior
> is
> alwa
--- Comment #5 from 0xe2 dot 0x9a dot 0x9b at gmail dot com 2010-02-16
17:37 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> There is nothing to fix. Your program triggers undefined behavior. It can do
> anything, which can include something you'd expect, or something completely
> di
--- Comment #3 from 0xe2 dot 0x9a dot 0x9b at gmail dot com 2010-02-16
11:23 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> If I were to modify the test case like this:
>
> int i = ab.b;
> b2 = i + i;
>
> I would be ALSO triggering undefined behavior. But the modified test-ca
--- Comment #2 from 0xe2 dot 0x9a dot 0x9b at gmail dot com 2010-02-16
10:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> 0x7fff + 1 overflows. Signed overflow invokes undefined behavior.
Like so what? Is this your way of saying "I am not going to fix it"? Do you
find it conve
t org
ReportedBy: 0xe2 dot 0x9a dot 0x9b at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43089
