danielmarjamaki added a comment. > However, the mainstream compilers like GCC and Clang implement this as the > overflowed value, and some programmers also use this feature to do some > tricky things.
hmm.. you mean if some -fwrapv flag is used right. yes I should disable this checking then. For information, I am not very worried about signed integer overflow. I am mostly worried about the compiler optimisations. If the compiler determines that there is signed integer overflow in a execution path and removes all code in that path. I was inspired by this blog post: https://www.airs.com/blog/archives/120 This function: int f(int x) { return 0x7ffffff0 < x && x + 32 < 0x7fffffff; } might be optimized to: int f(int x) { return 0; } Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92634/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92634 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
