http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
--- Comment #2 from kwieder at polytechnic dot edu.na 2013-01-06 12:14:16 UTC
---
Thanks for the quick response.
Why is
INT_MIN % -1
ok
and why is
int b = -1;
INT_MIN % b
not ok.
I"m well aware of INT_MIN / -1 is overflowing. If your are using a division
for the % operator, which you probably do, then INT_MIN % -1 should also crash.
Regards,
Klaus
On Jan 6, 2013, at 1:01 PM, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> if they have minimal value
>
> Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:01:33 +0000
>
> X-Bugzilla-Reason: Reporter
>
> X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
>
> X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
>
> X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
>
> X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
>
> X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
>
> X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
>
> X-Bugzilla-Who: sch...@linux-m68k.org
>
> X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
>
> X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
>
> X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
>
> X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
>
> X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Resolution
>
> Message-ID: <bug-55885-22726-gx0wfhk...@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
>
> In-Reply-To: <bug-55885-22...@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
>
> References: <bug-55885-22...@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
>
> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
>
> Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
>
>
>
> Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> changed:
>
>
>
> What |Removed |Added
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
>
> Resolution| |INVALID
>
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> 2013-01-06
> 11:01:33 UTC ---
>
> INT_MIN % -1 is undefined due to overflow. -fwrapv has no effect on division
>
> operations.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
>
> You reported the bug.
