From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116716-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19198 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2005 00:16:57 -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 19188 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2005 00:16:53 -0000
Received: from smtp-100-sunday.noc.nerim.net (HELO mallaury.nerim.net) (62.4.17.100)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:16:53 +0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (gdr.net1.nerim.net [62.212.99.186])
	by mallaury.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79D74F398;
	Sun,  3 Jul 2005 02:16:50 +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 j630FsKY026641;
	Sun, 3 Jul 2005 02:15:54 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j630FsHh026640;
	Sun, 3 Jul 2005 02:15:54 +0200
To: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>,
        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: <BEE9BCEE.AAC7%schlie@comcast.net>
	<20050630220250.GA10768@synopsys.com>
	<m3wtobwkg9.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<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>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <42C72005.1090900@adacore.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3r7egeocl.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2

Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:

| 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,

Yes, but it needs not cover all possible ranges.  For practical
purposes, if it covers the vast majority of such loops I'll take it
and leave you complaining about not covering all possible ranges.

-- Gaby