From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id C7D4B3857738; Mon,  7 Aug 2023 14:34:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C7D4B3857738
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691418853;
	bh=7dkhrx08c0gF5cUR3sdHjsMRmDfFqInTEhZSt80omrE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uXR5qZv0QO8nJdff7VjJW3+aS0nAdGCzZ84nuDulPvPDTPu/lLhp1aE2MQuTGL3A5
	 NeSP/5u8hSw/EuVnspEbfakJFSzc3ezuAgGpujWxt43Tif12be7leqCmX69y13s49z
	 hOr2KGiiRfRN0W4PjrG+X1EQyUHQ3eA1wgf5faWo=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/24542] potential unwanted truncation of operation overflow
 should be warned on assignment to wider variable
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 14:34:13 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.0.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-24542-4-tcsAoGlZ6g@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-24542-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-24542-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D24542

--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Niklas Hamb=C3=BCchen from comment #15)
> Another common integer overflow bug type is the "for (u32 i =3D 0; i < u6=
4;
> ++i)" pattern, as well as general widening comparisons.
>=20
> I filed bug 110933 for those; just linking it here for people interested =
in
> integer overflows.

There is no integer overflow here rather there has been wrapping happening.=
 Yes
there is a huge difference between the two. Wrapping is defined behavior wh=
ile
overflow is undefined behavior.=