Signed overflow optimization is just a cheap trick for avoiding the need to do real bounds analysis. Every single loop optimization possible by abusing signed o

Signed overflow optimization is just a cheap trick for avoiding the need to do real bounds analysis. Every single loop optimization possible by abusing signed overflow is also possible with unsigned values (and thus implementation-defined signed overflow) if you can prove your bounds. I'm sick and tired of compiler authors whining about how we "need" undefined signed overflow for optimization, particularly because I usually use unsigned loop counters and so don't benefit from this optimization, but would benefit from real, robust bounds analysis that worked for both signed and unsigned types.