> Here I'd like to demur, since I think it's useful to document > something that users can rely on. > > I'm not asking that we document every possible wrapv-assuming code > that happens to work. I'm only asking for enough so that users can > easily write code that tests for signed integer overflow, or to > compute sums, products, etc. that would apply if -fwrapv were in effect.
I'd rather encourage users to write code that conforms to the standard and where overflow is undefined. Supporting old code is one thing, but new code ought to follow the standard.
