On 10/20/2015 04:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
2015-10-20 Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com>
* fold-const.c (tree_binary_nonnegative_warnv_p) <FLOOR_MOD_EXPR>:
Recurse on operand #1 instead of operand #0.
<CEIL_MOD_EXPR>: Do not recurse.
<ROUND_MOD_EXPR>: Likewise.
Isn't this a function of the language and in some cases isn't it
implementation defined (true for C/C++ until C++11)?
The language determines *which* *_DIV_EXPR or *_MOD_EXPR is used. The
semantics of each of them should be language-independent.
You're, of course, correct.
So the only question is whether or not the CEIL_MOD_EXPR and
ROUND_MOD_EXPR bits are right. I'm confident the change to
FLOOR_MOD_EXPR is right.
Do we have any reasonable way to test CEIL_MOD_EXPR & ROUND_MOD_EXPR?
Jeff
