Andrew Haley wrote:
> I suspect the actual argument must be somewhere else.
I'm sure it is. The only purpose of my mail was to clarify what I
meant by "nonstandard", which in this case was "not strictly
conforming". I didn't intend to imply anything else.
But a compiler that implements wrap around IS strictly conforming.
A program that takes advantage of it is depending on non-standard
semantics, but then so is any program that uses floating-point and
expects it to have IEEE semantics to any extent.
