Hi, in general, I like this proposal a lot. However,
> As a start there will be no-overflow variants of NEGATE_EXPR, > PLUS_EXPR, MINUS_EXPR, MULT_EXPR and POINTER_PLUS_EXPR. > > The sizetypes will simply be operated on in no-overflow variants > by default (by size_binop and friends). > > Naming suggestions welcome, at the moment I consider NEGATEV_EXPR > (thus appending V to the first part). introducing new codes seems like a bad idea to me. There are many places that do not care about the distinction between PLUS_EXPR and PLUSV_EXPR, and handling both cases will complicate the code (see eg. the problems caused by introducing POINTER_PLUS_EXPR vs PLUS_EXPR distinction). Why not just use a flag to mark the operation as non-overflowing? Zdenek
