Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?

[Morten Welinder]

| signed types are undefined on overflow. [5/5] and [3.9.1/2,3]

> But a compiler could define them to be modulo -- that is the whole
> point.  The paragraph does not say they don't "modulo".

True, but you are going to have to deal with the run-time version of

    (int)0x80000000 / -1

which is unpleasant in the sense that Intel processors will trap and not
do anything modulo-like.

Morten