This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- To: Michael Veksler <VEKSLER at il dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: dewar at adacore dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, mark at codesourcery dot com, nathan at codesourcery dot com, Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:38:06 +0200
- Subject: Re: Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?
- References: <OF01DC2495.931B0FF4-ON4325702E.0044E10D-4325702E.00451C98@il.ibm.com>
On Tuesday 28 June 2005 14:34, Michael Veksler wrote:
> Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de> wrote on 28/06/2005 15:30:27:
> > On Tuesday 28 June 2005 14:16, Paul Koning wrote:
> > > I must be missing something.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Unsigned has wraparound (modulo)
> > > semantics.
> >
> > The whole point is that it doesn't.
>
> I think that you confuse between signed and unsigned.
> Signed does not have modulo semantics (in GCC.
> The standard permits it to have modulo semantics).
Hmmyes. Silly me.
Gr.
Steven