From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 803 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2005 16:19:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 794 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2005 16:19:48 -0000 Received: from mx-out.tiscali.fr (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) (213.36.80.91) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:19:48 +0000 Received: from dyn-83-152-125-56.ppp.tiscali.fr (83.152.125.56) by mail.libertysurf.net (7.1.026) id 42A318CE004B76D0; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:19:46 +0200 From: Eric Botcazou To: Michael Veksler Subject: Re: The utility of standard's semantics for overflow Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506291820.40553.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01262.txt.bz2 > Yes, I am pretty sure. I said "most lines of code", not "most > applications", > to indicate the density difference. If each line of code has, e.g., 1% > chance > to violate overflow rules, and 0.01% chance to violate aliasing rules, > then for 10KLOC, you have: > - probability of 63% to violate aliasing rules > - and 100% (99.99....9 with 43 nines) to violate overflow rules. Then there are different "most"s because, if each line of code has 1% chance to violate overflow rules, "most" of them don't for reasonable definitions of "most". -- Eric Botcazou