On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 20:41 -0700, ron minnich wrote: > > signed vs. unsigned int perhaps (meaning that x.botch becomes < 0 > > after the last assignment) ? > > > yeah. x.botch is 0 after last assignment. Until recently, gcc would > give you dispensation and set x.botch to -1 anyway if you set x.botch > = 1. But, recently, it now figures out it's an overflow and sets > x.botch to 0. Nice! That's an unexpected twist I must admit ;-) What version of gcc does this?
Thanks, Roman.
