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 inconsistend with gcc
- From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 27 Jun 2005 16:06:33 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/22200] numeric_limits<signed>::is_modulo is inconsistend with gcc
- References: <20050627151911.22200.veksler@il.ibm.com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-06-27 16:06 -------
Subject: Re: numeric_limits<signed>::is_modulo is inconsistend with gcc
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| INT_MAX/-1 is undefined.
| and signed overflow is undefined.
|
| Why file this bug when the comments on the list say this is not a bug?
Maybe the real question is why you feel you must send your message.
Please do consider the issue as raised on the main list and the
discussion there.
The point is we must say something about numerci_limits<>, and this
consistently with the behaviour of GCC. This probably is not an issue
for C, but it is for C++.
For all useful purposes, do remember that GCC used to define is_modulo
as false for signed integer types. It was consciously changed to true
by RTH. See the reference I gave.
Now, if you do not understand the issue, please refrain from sending
unhelpful messages.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22200