Guido van Rossum added the comment: Alexandre, which Python version did you compile with -Wstrict-overflow? It would behoove us to check 2.5.2 thoroughly before it goes out the door.
I will contact Coverity to ask if they check for this kind of thing. (They just upgraded us to "Rung 2", whatever that may mean. :-) MvL: I don't want 2s complement throughout the language, I just want the overflow checks to be reliable. Since I'd forgotten about the difference between unsigned and signed overflow, I have no idea how many overflow checks have been submitted that are relying on signed overflow; though apparently (if the -Wstrict-overflow results can be trusted) we're okay. FWIW, I've heard that some commercial compilers (e.g. XLC) assume that even *unsigned* overflow is undefined, violating the C standard. This would suggest that buffer overflow checks should be coded without relying on arithmetic overflow at all. This is possible, just a bit hairy. ---------- nosy: +gvanrossum __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1621> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
