Keith Thompson wrote:
<snip>
> Of course signed integer overflow isn't required to
> result in wraparound. The compiler *could* set ``whats_this'' to 0,
> or to a value derived from the current phase of the moon.
<snip>

<OT>
I am afraid (really and truly) that the statement isn't incorrect.
I mean, we expect the compilation of the same translation unit with the
same command line of the compiler invocation to be repeatable. [It
wasn't on a version of my compiler and was acknowledged as a bug.]
Is there any wording somewhere to that end?
[I am afraid, no, or some linkers won't have a habit of planting a
timestamp in the executable.]
</OT>

--
Ark