------- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-21 18:45 ------- This issue was discussed on the WG14 reflector in October 2008, and the general view was that the standard should not make INT_MIN % -1 well defined (as this would impose a significant performance cost on many programs to benefit very few) and probably didn't intend to.
There is still a bug for the -fwrapv case, where clearly both INT_MIN / -1 and INT_MIN % -1 should be well defined, but probably the extra checks if implemented should only be enabled implicitly for -fwrapv, not for C standards conformance modes. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
