Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 7 May 2019 01:22:50 +1000 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 19-05-014 19-04-021 19-04-023 19-04-037 19-04-039 19-04-042 19-04-044 19-04-047 19-05-004 19-05-008 19-05-014 19-05-021 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="82455"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | errors, comment |
| Posted-Date: | 06 May 2019 13:39:47 EDT |
From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2019 1:23 AM
> You are, as usual, very keen to pick out gcc as though it was something
> special here. Compilers have been assuming signed integer overflow
> never happens for over 20 years (that's just from my own personal
> experience), long before gcc was that smart.
Some compilers might, but I have not met one that does ignore
overflow.
Even in evaluating compile-time expressions, an overflow
is treated as an error, and a diagnostic is issued.
[clang and gcc definitely generate code that ignores integer overflows
at runtime. I just checked. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.