On 10/29/20 1:45 PM, Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Thank you for the review Richard!
>
> I re-worked the patch based on your suggestions. I combined the two patterns.
> Neither one requires a signedness check as long as the type of the 'add' has
> overflow wrap semantics.
>
> I had
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 8:45 PM Eugene Rozenfeld
wrote:
>
> Thank you for the review Richard!
>
> I re-worked the patch based on your suggestions. I combined the two patterns.
> Neither one requires a signedness check as long as the type of the 'add' has
> overflow wrap semantics.
>
> I had to m
Thank you for the review Richard!
I re-worked the patch based on your suggestions. I combined the two patterns.
Neither one requires a signedness check as long as the type of the 'add' has
overflow wrap semantics.
I had to modify the regular expression in no-strict-overflow-4.c test. In that
t
