>> .. and undo those macros?
>
> Well, if you then can? Signed integer overflow being undefined strikes me as a
> severe deficiency in the C language. This of course makes -wrapv a compiler
> level workaround, which may not be available to every compiler FreeType wants
> to support. Hm.
It's one
>
> .. and undo those macros?
>
Well, if you then can? Signed integer overflow being undefined strikes me
as a severe deficiency in the C language. This of course makes -wrapv a
compiler level workaround, which may not be available to every compiler
FreeType wants to support. Hm.
>
> This, sadly, brings us back to the current way of dealing with these things;
> adding ugly macros that transfer these operations from UB space into defined
> C space ... Not saying I'm happy with that but I believe this is the
> cleanest solution in the big picture right now.
Undefined
Undefined does not mean scary.
Actually yes. Have you read e.g.
http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_14.html?
Why do we even care?
The burden is actually on the compiler to not do anything crazy or
face consequences from users and public. For some reason the
