From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30818 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2007 01:14:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 30799 invoked by uid 48); 8 Mar 2007 01:14:38 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070308011438.30798.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: "pinskia 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: 2007-03/txt/msg00534.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #54 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 01:14 ------- (In reply to comment #53) > I read all this and the mailing list thread with great interest, > however I think there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning: > > C90 6.2.1.2 / C99 6.3.1.3 defines signed integer overflow > as "implementation-defined behaviour", which is something completely > different than "undefined behaviour". Those sections are not about singed integer overflow but conversion between the types which is implementation defined as you shown. If you look at what is being descibed here is conversion between types but overflow. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475