[Bug target/30484] INT_MIN % -1 is well defined for -fwrapv

[vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484

--- Comment #19 from Vincent Lefèvre <vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net> ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> True.  The user could have written the following though:
> 
> int f (int a, int b, int c)
> {
>   return (unsigned)a + b + c;
> }

This code is incorrect, as based on an implementation-defined behavior.

> or alternatively
> 
> int f (int a, int b, int c)
> { 
>   return (long)a + b + c;
> } 

This code is incorrect, and it may yield an integer overflow when long = int,
e.g. on 32-bit processors.