From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  5 Jun 2007 20:48:51 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] quiz
In-reply-to: <13426df10706052041x516117f0sf873a56ed5c05b94@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Message-id: <1181101733.9939.138.camel@localhost>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <13426df10706051736q4e1852a9g3f54d8f6e2d182b4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1181090589.4241.41.camel@work.sfbay.sun.com>
	<13426df10706052041x516117f0sf873a56ed5c05b94@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 79c2a872-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 20:41 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> >   signed vs. unsigned int perhaps (meaning that x.botch becomes < 0
> > after the last assignment) ?
>
>
> yeah. x.botch is 0 after last assignment. Until recently, gcc would
> give you dispensation and set x.botch to -1 anyway if you set x.botch
> = 1. But, recently, it now figures out it's an overflow and sets
> x.botch to 0.

  Nice! That's an unexpected twist I must admit ;-) What version of
gcc does this?

Thanks,
Roman.