https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98168
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ilya Kurdyukov from comment #0)
> Thus, optimizations that falsely assume that the target machine is
> performing signed integer saturation when it is not - should be considered
> dangerous.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98168
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
note that -ftrapv or -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow should successfully
catch it at runtime, though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98168
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98168
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98168
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
