From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-117295-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26703 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2005 14:26:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26689 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jul 2005 14:26:40 -0000
Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (HELO sccrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.202.55)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:26:40 +0000
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-24-61-199-96.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.61.199.96])
          by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP
          id <2005071614263801100s4um7e>; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:26:39 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:26:00 -0000
Subject: Re: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed
 integers?
From: Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>
To: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>,
	Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com>
CC: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Message-ID: <BEFE915C.AD94%schlie@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <42D8F7A3.2080400@futureapps.de>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00659.txt.bz2

> From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
> 2) if putting local variables in registers becomes impossible
>   there will be a significant cost. I wanted to get an impression
>   of the cost. That's the reason for writing volatile in the
>   declaration lines. Just for demo.)

I believe that was just a miss-statement, as I don't believe there's any
relationship between the two.