On 29/11/2007, Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@fs.ei.tum.de> wrote:
quoted text
> 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