Matthew Dillon wrote:
quoted text
>     I was rather surprised that the compiler barfed on that code.  That code
>     was, in fact, explicitly testing for an overflow.  Regardless of what
>     C99 says, it would be ultra stupid for any compiler to stray outside of
>     the type's width.

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.

cheers
  simon

-- 
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \