Content deleted Content added
→Explanation for removal: C compilers do it, so it should be described here. |
|||
Line 89:
Repeating myself a bit, "implementation-defined" means "the implementation has decided what the result will be". It does not ever mean "the implementation can make assumptions about the wishes of the programmer". If the implementation has decided that the result of integer overflow is silent wrap-around, then the compiler must generate code that is correct for silent wrap-around. It can't generate wrap-around code and then assume there was no wrap-around. Anyway, the most important reason for signed integer overflow being implementation-defined (and a good reason for testing before the operation for maximum portability) is that an implementation is allowed to generate a trap condition. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 03:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
:
:I might agree that the previous one isn't perfect, but recent discussions of C compilers indicate that it is needed, in some form or other. c optimizers have been doing things that I wouldn't suggest for some time. I disagree with this one, too, but it seems that they are doing it. [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 05:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
| |||