------- Comment #3 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-01-09 22:21 ------- The standard refers to "(l+n)%size()", so if size()=0, that seems to be undefined. On the other hand, it seems fairly obvious what should happen in this case (ie nothing).
On an unrelated note, isn't there a another bug in the standard here, as it seems to be assuming that (-1)%n = (n-1) for positive n, which isn't required by the standard? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30416
