This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/22200] numeric_limits<signed>::is_modulo is inconsistent with gcc
- From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 01:11:47 +0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/22200] numeric_limits<signed>::is_modulo is inconsistent with gcc
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-22200-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22200
Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #43 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-05 01:11:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> It would probably be useful to add a preprocessor macro when -fwrapv is
> in effect.
What would be the preferred form, macros __GCC_WRAPV, __GCC_TRAPV,
__GCC_STRICT_OVERFLOW, etc, defined only when the matching flag is passed? Or
maybe a macro __GCC_INTEGER_OVERFLOW that is 0 for undefined, 1 for wrapping, 2
for trapping, etc?
Maybe I should file this as a different PR? adding the macros doesn't mean we
have to use them in is_modulo. By the way, for is_modulo, we could probably
arrange so that the values don't have to be in libstdc++.so, if that helps.