From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17057 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2007 19:50:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 16995 invoked by uid 48); 22 Jan 2007 19:50:24 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070122195024.16994.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: "felix-gcc at fefe dot de" 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/msg01850.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #48 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2007-01-22 19:50 ------- Oh wow, another wise cracking newbie who comments without actually understanding the issue. I AM NOT RELYING ON UNDEFINED BEHAVIOR. On the contrary. gcc is fine to assign 23 instead of a negative number. But if it does assign a negative number (as it does), I want "if (a<0)" to trigger. That part is not undefined. But never mind the security issue here, which is apparently too complicated for you guys to understand. This optimization actually makes code SLOWER. AND it makes people mad when they find out about it. So, uh, which part of that don't you understand? There is an optimization that makes the code slower, not faster. Turn it off already. -- felix-gcc at fefe dot de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|WONTFIX | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475