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?
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > Yes, we should document this. In general, implementation defined
| > aspects (and some of the undefined behaviour aspects) are missing
| > documentation for C++ -- JSM did some work for that for C.
|
| Is there a convenient checklist for C++ similar to C99's Annex J.3 and
| J.4, or is it necessary to go through the whole standard to find what
| needs documenting?
There is no such things as the C99's annex for C++. So, I'm afraid
one would go through the entire document. I'll raise the issue so
that the next C++0x has something similar. But, int the meantime, I'd
try to produce a collection based on grep.
-- Gaby