On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Richard Biener wrote: > Note the slight complication with static initializers that _do_ have > to simplify to something (well, maybe not with -ftrapv ...). Joseph, > I can easily make fold fail if you don't explicitely use a constant > folding API (int_const_binop) and -ftrapv is set. Is it valid to > reject > > static int x = __INT_MAX__ + 1; > > with an initializer-not-constant error?
Yes - -pedantic-errors already gives an error there, as it should. Of course static int x = 1 ? 0 : __INT_MAX__ + 1; must not give an error, whereas one is OK (and required with -pedantic-errors) for static int x = 0 * (__INT_MAX__ + 1); (one of the cases where the answer you get is the same as if C integers had an infinite range, where some people are less concerned about ensuring runtime errors occur - like e.g. x * 2 / 2 - I think the starting point should be generating such errors whenever overflow occurs in the abstract machine and then possibly having options to omit some such errors). (I tend to the view that -ftrapv should map to -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error so we only have the one implementation of these checks to get right and to optimize as much as possible.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
