On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > Richi, > > i am having a little trouble putting this back the way that you want. The > issue is rem. > what is supposed to happen for INT_MIN % -1? > > I would assume because i am failing the last case of gcc.dg/c90-const-expr-8.c > that INT_MIN %-1 should not overflow even if INT_MIN / -1 does. however,
Given the conclusion in C11 that a%b should be considered undefined if a/b is not representable, I think it's reasonable to say INT_MIN % -1 *should* be considered to overflow (for all C standard versions) (and bug 30484 is only a bug for -fwrapv). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
