https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89977
--- Comment #5 from JunMa <JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com> --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4) > You're right that the conversion from int128_t to unsigned long can result > in truncation, so the range of the result is that of unsigned long. Yet I > suspect that relying on it is more likely unintentional and a bug. The > question in my mind is whether narrowing int128_t conversions should be > diagnosed just in these contexts (i.e., -Wstringop-overflow) or in others as > well. We have no idea whether these truncations is intentional or not in gcc side, maybe we need a new option such as Wstringop-truncation to do this.
