Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-27 Thread Martin Sebor
On 04/27/2017 03:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: On 04/26/2017 01:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimizati

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-27 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/26/2017 01:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > > > On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimization > > > > levels.

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-26 Thread Martin Sebor
On 04/26/2017 01:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimization levels. The intent is to remove -fno-strict-overflow signed overflow behavior as that

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-26 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimization > > levels. The intent is to remove -fno-strict-overflow signed overflow > > behavior as that is not a sensible option to the

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-25 Thread Martin Sebor
On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimization levels. The intent is to remove -fno-strict-overflow signed overflow behavior as that is not a sensible option to the user (it ends up with the worst of both -fwrapv and -fno-w

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-25 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/25/2017 09:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On April 25, 2017 4:39:49 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimization levels. The intent is to remove -fno-strict-overflow signed overflow

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-25 Thread Richard Biener
On April 25, 2017 4:39:49 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote: >On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> The following makes signed overflow undefined for all >(non-)optimization >> levels. The intent is to remove -fno-strict-overflow signed overflow >> behavior as that is not a sensible opt

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-25 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimization levels. The intent is to remove -fno-strict-overflow signed overflow behavior as that is not a sensible option to the user (it ends up with the worst of both -fwrapv and -fno-w

[PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

2017-04-24 Thread Richard Biener
The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimization levels. The intent is to remove -fno-strict-overflow signed overflow behavior as that is not a sensible option to the user (it ends up with the worst of both -fwrapv and -fno-wrapv). The implementation details need to be pr