On 17/11/2015 17:02, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> * it doesn't promise that GCC will never rely on undefined behavior >> rules for signed left shifts > > I think we should remove the ", but this is subject to change" in > implement-c.texi (while replacing it with noting that ubsan will still > diagnose such cases, and they will also be diagnosed where constant > expressions are required).
That's great. I'll send a patch. Paolo
