Paolo Carlini writes: > Roberto Bagnara wrote: > > > No, Paolo: the result of INT_MIN % -1 is zero, according to the standard. > > There is no overflow whatsoever involved. The overflow that you > > see is simply an artifact of GCC that produces assembly code that > > does not implement remainder expressions correctly. > > Ok, I believe you. However, isn't true that, in general, because the > sign of the result is implementation defined,
The sign of the result of % is no longer (since C99) implementation- defined. Andrew.
