Andrew Pinski <pinskia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > the one thing I have not heard through this > discussion is the real reason why the C standards comittee decided > signed overflow as being undefined. I wasn't there, but my impression is that many of the optimization issues we've talked about in this thread were already well known by the late 1980s, and the compiler writers were itching to share as much backend stuff between C and Fortran as they could. I suspect users were not consulted directly. I doubt whether saturation came into it; that wasn't as popular back then. But this is just my speculation. > Also I think GCC still has a bug with respect of -fwrapv anyways on x86. The problem with INT_MIN / -1 (and with INT_MIN % -1, too) is already documented in the Autoconf manual, so it shouldn't need further changes. In some sense INT_MIN % -1 is worse, since it's a standards violation. > Oh and fixing this bug will actually slow down users of -fwrapv That's OK. That's what -fwrapv is for. > there is no reliable way without using unsigned. Some targets > in the future actually do saturation instead of wrapping We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it. > Old C programs that written against the C standard depend on signed > overflow being defined as wrapping. Much of the code in question is not that old, I'm afraid. > I hope people learn from their mistakes in the past for depening on this > behavior and actually instead of changing GCC, people fix up their code. > I also hope programs written after 1989 don't depend on this behavior I'm afraid your hopes will be dashed. It's been -- what? -- 18 years since C89 came out, and it appears most C programmers haven't learned yet. I see no reason to expect things to be different in the future, if we just keep on doing what we have been doing. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
