https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
--- Comment #5 from Paul Romano ---
Got it; thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the noise! Guess I'll just
have to stop relying on this "feature" of previous versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is a bad understanding of what undefined behavior means. After you invoke
undefined behavior anywhere in your program, anything can happen, there are no
constraints on what can happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
--- Comment #3 from Paul Romano ---
Thank you both for your quick responses. I understand that the bit model for
negative numbers is undefined and that x*x overflows and is thus also
undefined. However, the second argument to IAND is well-defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83235
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
