On 11/12/2015 10:00 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 4:43 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> So the question is, do we support twos complement only, hence signed
>> overflow is
>> defined as wrap,
>
> Yes. I see no reason to support 1's complement.
It's official! :)
> It's worth checking how LDC and GDC deal with this deep in their
> optimizer - is it considering it undefined behavior?
Since it's UB in C and C++, I've heard that both clang and gcc do remove
code branches if they can prove that there will be signed overflow. I
don't know how or whether that optimization is turned off for D.
Ali
