http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre <vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net> --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5) > (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #4) > > There's still an inconsistency without -Wpedantic, which is the point of > > this bug. I've changed the bug title to: > > > > -Woverflow warning inconsistency with signed constant conversion between > > T_MAX+1 and UT_MAX vs larger than UT_MAX > > I seem to remember this inconsistency is due to the exact definition of > overflow given in the standard. Which definition? As I understand the standard, there's no overflow in the integer constant: 65535 and 65536 are both of type int on the machine in question (C99, 6.4.4.1p5). Then, in the assignment, there's a conversion of the value to type short (C99, 6.5.16.1p2). Concerning this conversion, since short is a signed integer type and neither 65535 nor 65536 is representable in the type short, the behavior is implementation-defined (C99, 6.3.1.3p3). I still don't see why the inconsistency would be due to the definition of overflow.
