Message87730
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | alexandre.vassalotti, christian.heimes, donmez, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, loewis, mark.dickinson, matejcik, nnorwitz, pitrou, vstinner |
| Date | 2009-05-14.09:00:15 |
| SpamBayes Score | 1.7467747e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1242291620.45.0.0551263828295.issue1621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> This is puzzling, isn't it? I don't see why. There's nothing in -Wall -Wextra -Wsigned-overflow that asks for warnings for code that might overflow. Indeed, I don't see how any compiler could reasonably provide such warnings without flagging (almost) every occurrence of arithmetic on signed integers as suspect.[*] The -ftrapv option is useful for catching genuine signed-integer overflows at runtime, but it can still only catch those cases that actually get exercised (e.g., by the Python test suite). [*] Even some operations on unsigned integers would have to be flagged: the C expression "(unsigned short)x * (unsigned short)y" also has the potential to invoke undefined behaviour, thanks to C's integer promotion rules. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2009-05-14 09:00:21 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients: + mark.dickinson, gvanrossum, loewis, nnorwitz, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, alexandre.vassalotti, donmez, matejcik |
| 2009-05-14 09:00:20 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1242291620.45.0.0551263828295.issue1621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2009-05-14 09:00:18 | mark.dickinson | link | issue1621 messages |
| 2009-05-14 09:00:17 | mark.dickinson | create | |