On 09/26/2013 09:29 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2013-09-25 22:29:58 -0400, James K. Lowden wrote: >> You mean that a naïve rendering of the source code implies an overflow >> where none might exist in the actual emitted object code. And, >> presumably, the converse: that even if the source is written such that >> there logically can't be an overflow, the compiler might render object >> code that does. > > The converse is forbidden. You'll find it hard to justify that by any language in the standard. Andrew.
