------- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 03:32 ------- Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"chris at bubblescope dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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 the other other hand [semi ;-)], even without resorting to undefinedness of "% size()", it takes a special rule to define the cyclic rotation of nothing. I don't see that special rule, which is why I asked why it was obvious that the result it well-defined. | 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? the "c" in "cshift" stands for "cyclic", and yes the standard should have described the behviour in terms of cyclic permutation instead of showing an implementation. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30416
