On 29/11/2007, Simon 'corecode' Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I think it is stupid. But I don't think that any newer GCC version > fixes this. We'll probably have to change GCC not to include this > optimization. Mind you that this happens only for signed overflows. > Unsigned overflow should still work as we expect.
Maybe it would be helpful to know if this is actually a bug in the gcc-4.1.x branch or if it was on purpose. What about Mezz's posting? If gcc-4.2 on FreeBSD behaves differently, what happened? Did they hack gcc in their base system or has the stock gcc-4.2 reverted to the old (and desired) behaviour? Riggs
