Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | > | > As I said, if you let user tell you that his loop behaves well, i.e. | > bounds do not rely on wrapping semantics, and yet he writes his loop to | > deceive the compiler, then he loses. Let him choose his own poinson, | > don't think you have to choose it for him. | | They already can, that is what -fwrapv is for.
No, you completely missed the point and it would help if you read through carefully. The choice was about letting user tell you what he knows/assumes about his loop bounds. Not applying uniformly the wrapping semantics. (Not counting the fact that it was pointed out -fwrapv is useful as is). -- Gaby
