On 03/15/2012 11:12 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:

> the reason unsigned integer types are prefered is that possible overflows
> during the computation have defined semantics.  With pointer types, the
> intermediate steps of the computations could have undefined behavior, possibly
> confusing further optimizations.  Is the patch with this regard?

It's trying to use sizetype for pointer offset computations. As far as I
can tell that's supposed to be an unsigned type, so it should be OK. I
think the final POINTER_PLUS_EXPRs we make can't overflow in valid programs.


Reply via email to