* Paul Schlie: >> (Without -fwrapv, integer overflow is undefined, and subsequent range >> checks can be optimized away, so that it might cause erroneous >> behavior.) > > - Since for all practical purposes most (if not all) target's use > 2's complement integer representations which naturally "wrap", might > it be simply best to presume that all do "wrap" by default, but allow > -fnowrapv to disable it if ever required by the odd target/language?
Enabling -fwrapv disables quite a few optimizations on signed integer types in C code. OTOH, you should compile most real-world C code with -fwrapv anyway. See my security advisory on incorrect overflow checking in C; this is a rather widespread issue, even in new code.
