From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116717-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21132 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2005 00:20:33 -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 21114 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2005 00:20:28 -0000
Received: from smtp-100-sunday.nerim.net (HELO kraid.nerim.net) (62.4.16.100)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:20:28 +0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (gdr.net1.nerim.net [62.212.99.186])
	by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395B540F5B;
	Sun,  3 Jul 2005 02:20:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j630JSKY026645;
	Sun, 3 Jul 2005 02:19:28 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j630JSlV026644;
	Sun, 3 Jul 2005 02:19:28 +0200
To: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>,
        Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>,
        "'gcc mailing list'" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Should GCC publish a general rule/warning due to it's default presumption of undefined signed integer overflow semantics?
References: <20050630232531.GA11010@synopsys.com>
	<m3irzv5p1r.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<a0222ee0d8b9c032e23bc30d2920559b@physics.uc.edu>
	<20050701012538.GA11465@synopsys.com>
	<m3y88r484c.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<1120187757.17986.14.camel@linux-009002243055>
	<m3slyz41ce.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<42C6C5E7.20005@adacore.com>
	<m3ekahhvti.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<42C72005.1090900@adacore.com> <20050702232806.GA25239@synopsys.com>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050702232806.GA25239@synopsys.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:20:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3ll4oeo6n.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2

Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM> writes:

| On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 07:15:17PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
| > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > >
| > >   for (int i = min; i < max; ++i)
| > >       ....
| > >
| > >and i, min and max don't change in the body, no matter what you think
| > >of C's general "for" not being a FOR loop, the above is a FOR loop.
| > 
| > But this normal paradigm for representing a FOR loop does not work for
| > all possible ranges, that's precisely the trouble!
| 
| Yes, there's a problem if the maximum value of i is intended to be
| INT_MAX.

I don't think the cases of INT_MAX represents the majority of such FOR
loop.  The semi-open interval is a widespread idiom and has become a
standard idiom, at least if you move to STL :-)

-- Gaby