On 11/29/2013 04:04 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Attached is what I have so far. I have to say I'm starting to come
> around to Tom's point of view. This is a lot of hassle for not much
> gain. i've noticed a number of other overflow checks that the llvm
> optimizer is not picking up on so even after this patch it's not clear
> that all the signed overflow checks that depend on -fwrapv will be
> gone.
>
> This patch still isn't quite finished though.
In addition to what you have in the patch, Coverity is complaining about
the overflow checks in int4abs (which is just like int8abs), and in
DetermineTimeZoneOffset.
- Heikki