Andrew Haley wrote:
Which it is doing. What, then, is your point?
My point was explaining the aspect of this that the OP probably wouldn't
have understood after your first reply: The fact that the optimizer in
a specific compiler can/should/does base its behavior on the actual non
optimized code of THAT compiler, not on the universe of possible non
optimized code specified by the standard.
In other words, I was giving the reason that your first reply is correct
even with his statement "signed integer overflow is undefined". I
expect a beginner reading your reply would conclude you had ignored or
disagreed with that statement.
