On 04/23/2010 07:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Heinz Riener
wrote:
[...]
Signed interger overflow is undefined. Use -fwrapv or
-fno-strict-overflow if you want gcc to behave as signed interger
overflow being defined.
Yes, that's what I wa
I added this question to the FAQ:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#signed_overflow
Feel free to improve the answer for the future.
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 23 April 2010 19:35, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Heinz Riener
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Heinz Riener
wrote:
Dear all,
I'm using the native GCC version[1] of my GNU/Linux distribution. I
wonder whether GCC's optimization behavior is in the following case
correct. Consider the following two programs:
(1)
int test(int n
2010/4/23 Heinz Riener :
> Dear all,
>
> I'm using the native GCC version[1] of my GNU/Linux distribution. I wonder
> whether GCC's optimization behavior is in the following case correct.
> Consider the following two programs:
>
> (1)
> int test(int n) {
> if (n > 0)
> return 1;
> return 0;
Dear all,
I'm using the native GCC version[1] of my GNU/Linux distribution. I
wonder whether GCC's optimization behavior is in the following case
correct. Consider the following two programs:
(1)
int test(int n) {
if (n > 0)
return 1;
return 0;
}
(2)
int test(int n) {
if (2*n > 0
