Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

[Bruce Korb]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> Admittedly it's only two small tests, and it's with 4.1.1.  But that's
>> two more tests than the -fwrapv naysayers have done, on
>> bread-and-butter applications like coreutils or gzip or Emacs (or GCC
>> itself, for that matter).
> 
> These are not performance needing applications.
> I'll happily grant you that  adding -fwrapv will make no difference at
> all on any application that does not demand performance in integer or
> floating point calculations.

It seems then that this pretty-much ought to settle it:
If the only folks that would really care are those that do performance
critical work, then 99.9% of folks not doing that kind of work should
not bear the risk of having their code break.  The long standing
presumption, standardized or not, is that of wrapv semantics.
Changing that presumption without multiple years of -Wall warnings
is a Really, Really, Really Bad Idea.