Re: documentating the recent -fwrapv discussion

[Ben Pfaff]

This is good documentation.  I see one typo:

> +Despite this requirement by the standard, it has long been common for C
> +code to assume wraparound arithmetic after signed overflow, and all
> +known practical C implementations support some C idioms that assume
> +wraparound signed arithmetic, even if the idioms does not conform

"...idioms does not..." => "...idioms do not..."

> +strictly to the standard.  If your code looks like the following
> +examples it will almost surely work with real-world compilers.

-- 
"Ho ho ho. I _so_ enjoy making a fool out of myself."
--Linus, on Christmas Day, 2000