http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4) > Yea, 254.gap is definitely overflowing signed types. I've got changes to > make the warnings and -fno-strict-overflow work that I'll put through their > paces tomorrow. > > I think we should twiddle the testcase to verify we don't muck it up when > -fno-strict-overflow is active. Yes, that would be nice.
