On 2013-09-26 15:49:05 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > 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. What do you mean? -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
