Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3EEBA3D6.1E72BF9D@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:38:14 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Integer Overflow
References:	<3EEA9A4B DOT 7B15E2A AT yahoo DOT com> <4098-Sat14Jun2003113806+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3EEAFF3E DOT DB9719A7 AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

CBFalconer wrote:
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:45:15 -0400
> > > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> > >
> > > compiled with "gcc -O0 -ftrapv ttrap.c
> > >
> > > It traps integer overflow quite nicely, although I don't approve
> > > of the code generation (what happened to INTO).
> >
> > Please show the code or disassembly fragment that you refer to here.
> > I cannot quite understand what you don't like about the code.  (It's
> > also possible that I have a different compiler version installed, so
> > please do tell what "gcc --version" prints on your machine.)
> 
> It is gcc 3.2.1.
[snip]

I'd suggest retesting with gcc 3.2.3, before submitting a gcc bug report. It
may have already been fixed. You see a list of bugfixes in gcc versions
somewhere on http://gcc.gnu.org/ . If not, try searching the bug tracking
database - maybe someone else has already reported it.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -