Dmitry K. wrote:
[...]
void foo (int i)
{
static int n;
if (i < CHAR_MIN || i > CHAR_MAX)
abort ();
if (++n > 1000)
exit (0);
}
int main ()
{
char c;
for (c = 0; ; c++) foo (c);
}
Is this strictly wrong, from the C definition point of view?
I know that signed overflow is "undefined". How does this test case
interacts with -fwrapv and -fno-strict-overflow?
For those unaware of signed overflow issues, there is a nice sum up here:
http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/120
I know that turning "undefined" into an "out of range" result is ugly,
but so is signed overflow....
--
Paulo Marques
Software Development Department - Grupo PIE, S.A.
Phone: +351 252 290600, Fax: +351 252 290601
Web: www.grupopie.com
"...so she told me it was either her or the ham radio, over."
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
