http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56463
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john2.718281828459045235360
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56463
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mskyeong at naver dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56463
--- Comment #5 from Cristóbal Camarero
2013-02-27 08:19:04 UTC ---
Dominique, I think the test I found is more problematic than yours. Since in
mine, the huge value is completely independent of the ending condition. Hence
most people would expec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56463
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-02-26
18:41:56 UTC ---
> The compiler may assume that undefined behavior doesn't happen in the program.
> It is fine to have undefined behavior in code that will be never executed, but
> as soo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56463
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-26
17:53:43 UTC ---
The compiler may assume that undefined behavior doesn't happen in the program.
It is fine to have undefined behavior in code that will be never executed, but
as soon as you hit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56463
--- Comment #2 from Cristóbal Camarero
2013-02-26 17:39:31 UTC ---
I think that at least -Wall -Wextra -Wstrict-overflow=5 should give a giving
notice of the extremely odd behaviour.
However, I am not following your reasoning to invalidate the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56463
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
