From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10700 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2011 18:17:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 10688 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2011 18:17:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 18:17:41 +0000 From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/50066] [4.7 Regression] Bad signed int to unsigned long long conversion Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 18:23:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2011-08/txt/msg01259.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-13 18:17:24 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Created attachment 25006 [details] > A patch > > GMP code may be buggy. But it works with all other compilers, > including GCC 4.6.0 and older. Is there any particular good > reason to ignore range overflow? This patch checks range > overflow and caused no regressions on Linux/x86. No Again we decided long ago to have overflow declared as being undefined and ignoring range overflow is not what we decided. It might work with other compilers does not mean it is valid and well defined code.