From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7949 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2005 20:13:41 -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 7938 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2005 20:13:38 -0000 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (HELO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net) (216.148.227.85) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:13:38 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-24-61-199-96.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.61.199.96]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <20050714201332014004d0coe>; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:13:35 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:13:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers? From: Paul Schlie To: Robert Dewar CC: Matthew Woodcraft , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <42D6BDE4.10603@adacore.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00613.txt.bz2 > From: Robert Dewar >> Paul Schlie wrote: > >> I don't contest that it may, I simply don't believe it should. > > you can't seriously mean that with respect to uninitialized > variables. this would mean you could not put local variables in > registers. the effect on code quality woul be awful! Why would anyone care about the performance of an access to an un-initialized variable? Rather than attempting to insure their diagnosis, and hopeful subsequent removal the specified code? Personally, see no value in producing faster garbage; although do see substantial value in producing compiled code which is strictly consistent with the specified program and native target behavior, regardless of its portability.