has or had? I think that some MIPS variant deprecated the trap on overflow, if this is the case then gcc & clang behaviour is logical if not then it's un-compre

has or had? I think that some MIPS variant deprecated the trap on overflow, if this is the case then gcc & clang behaviour is logical if not then it's un-comprehensible (especially since at the same time they justify f.. up your executable for 'optimisation' purpose if you have an undefined in your code).