Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Upon attempted careful reading of the standard's excerpts quoted by | Gabriel Dos Reis per <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00763.html>, | it's not clear that GCC's current presumption of LIA-1 overflow semantics | in absents of their true support is actually advocated by the standard. | | As by my read, it seems fairly clear that "If an implementation adds | support for the LIA-1 exception values ... then those types are LIA-1 | conformant types"; implies to me an intent that LIA-1 semantics may be | legitimately presumed "if" the semantics are "supported" by a target | implementation (just as null pointer optimizations should not be | considered legitimate if not correspondingly literally supported by | a given target).
Note, however, that LIA-1 conformance -- just like IEEE-754 conformance -- is more than just wrapping semantics. Interestingly, GCC/g++ advertises wrapping semantics for the following types * char * signed char * unsigned char * wchar_t * short * unsigned short * int * unsigned int * long * unsigned long * long long * unsigned long long this ad is brought to you by std::numeric_limits<T>::is_modulo. -- Gaby
