Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?

[Joseph S. Myers]

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?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)