------- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 14:52 ------- I think Jon is right on both accounts: the request is reasonable, but, even before that last changes, thus since the very beginning of v3:
if (!__r)
__r = __size - __osize;
thus, I think we want something that while efficient preserves this behavior
(without overflowing). I'm not sure we can do much better, given the
constraints...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44413
