http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-29
14:24:24 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 29 14:24:19 2011
New Revision: 171664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=171664
Log:
PR c++/47504
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-17
22:00:51 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 17 22:00:47 2011
New Revision: 171116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=171116
Log:
PR c++/47504
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-16
23:43:38 UTC ---
which has implementation-defined behavior according to the C and C++ standards.
But that does not mean it has an overflow though, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-17
03:14:22 UTC ---
True, the language standards seem to distinguish between this and the overflow
you get from saying INT_MAX+1. But GCC internals do not make this distinction;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
