On 2007-01-16 12:31:00 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: > Roberto Bagnara wrote: > >Reading the thread "Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer > >overflow & portability" I was horrified to discover about GCC's > >miscompilation of the remainder expression that causes INT_MIN % -1 > >to cause a SIGFPE on CPUs of the i386 family. Are there plans to > >fix this bug (which, to me, looks quite serious)? > > Seems ultra-non-serious to me, hard to believe this case appears > in real code, despite surprising claim by Roberto.
What makes you think so? One never knows. We (the MPFR developers) found several compiler bugs concerning particular cases like that, which occurred in MPFR. One of them (in some gcc version) was 0 + LONG_MIN, which was different from LONG_MIN. Is 0 + LONG_MIN so different from INT_MIN % -1, for instance? -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
