https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
Ariel Torti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019, arieltorti14 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
>
> --- Comment #2 from Ariel Torti ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
--- Comment #2 from Ariel Torti ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> Built-in functions related to integer overflow should be defined in terms
> of the C abstract machine model, not in terms of processor flags.
They
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Built-in functions related to integer overflow should be defined in terms
of the C abstract machine model, not in terms of processor flags.
See recent WG14 discussions around this issue
