[Python-Dev] gcc 4.2 exposes signed integer overflows

[Armin Rigo]

Hi Tim,

On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Thomas Wouters]
> > Why not just "... && x == LONG_MIN"?

> it's better (when possible) not to tie the code to that `x` was
> specifically declared as type "long" (e.g., just more stuff that will
> break if Python decides to make its short int of type PY_LONG_LONG
> instead).

The proposed "correct fix" breaks this goal too:

> >> "if (y == -1 && x < 0 && (unsigned long)x == -(unsigned long)x)".

                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^


A bientot,

Armin