From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31280 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2007 21:52:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 31246 invoked by uid 48); 21 Jan 2007 21:52:35 -0000 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070121215235.31245.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/30475] assert(int+100 > int) optimized away In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01722.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #40 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 21:52 ------- I've read through the comments in this PR. I thought it would be useful to point out that a decision on how GCC will optimize in the absence of -fwrapv will not be decided by this PR. This change has been extensively discussed on the GCC list, and, really, that is the appropriate forum for this. So, even if this PR is constantly reopened, it won't be resolved via this route. If you do intend to bring this up again on the GCC list, please read the previous discussion before posting. Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475