Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: > There is a lot of value in being able to compile with -Wstrict-overflow > and know that every warning omitted is something to be looked at.
I agree in principle; this certainly applies to -Wall. But -Wstrict- overflow doesn't do a particularly good job of finding signed overflow cases: there are a good few false positives, and it doesn't pick up the many cases of actual everyday signed overflow e.g., in unicode_hash, byteshash, set_lookkey, etc.), so it doesn't seem a particular good basis for code rewriting. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1621> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
