On 11/12/2013 11:27 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
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).
however, my local question is what do we want the api to be
int-const-binop-1? The existing behavior seems to be that at least
for common modes this function silently returns 0 and it is up to the
front ends to put their own spin on it.
kenny
