Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?

According to the (very) long discussion on VRP, signed char/short/int/etc do not have modulo semantic, they have an undefined behavior on overflow. However in defines numeric_limits::is_modulo = true. 1. Is that a bug in , a bug in the standard, or is just C++ different than C in this resp

Re: Confusing code in regrename.c

On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 05:27:31PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > The stuff added in 1.28 (lines 1608-1612) to kill early-clobbered > operands is precisely the same as what is done just a few lines > earlier (lines 1595-1598). Is this a thinko or is this necessary for > some non-obvious reason??

Re: [Ada] Current patch needed to build Ada as of 20050626

On Jun 26, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Laurent GUERBY wrote: After recent fixes, the only patch left to be able to build Ada on mainline is for the wrapv problems http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21959 (patch by Andreas Schwab). It works at least on x86 and x86_64-linux: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml

Re: attributes and templates

On Jun 26, 2005, at 5:54 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Paulo, I tried to get attributes and templates to play nice. Even though conceptually it's quite straight forward, our data representations and current instantiation machinery pretty much make it very difficult. It would be several days (

attributes and templates

Paulo, I tried to get attributes and templates to play nice. Even though conceptually it's quite straight forward, our data representations and current instantiation machinery pretty much make it very difficult. It would be several days (maybe a week or two) to get working :( I'm fairly certain

[Ada] Current patch needed to build Ada as of 20050626

After recent fixes, the only patch left to be able to build Ada on mainline is for the wrapv problems http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21959 (patch by Andreas Schwab). It works at least on x86 and x86_64-linux: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01590.html http://gcc.gnu.o

Re: makeinfo 4.8 generates non-standard HTML for @[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi Karl, On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Karl Berry wrote: > You should substitute `i686 > ' in the above command with the appropriate processor > for your host. > Thanks for the report, I'll work on fixing that. have you had a chance to look into this? It's certainly not a top priority

Re: cpp, CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH, and g++: bug or feature?

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Joe Buck wrote: > The reason for this (making the g++ script compile .c files as C++) is > historical; in the early days Stroustrup used the .c extension for C++ as > well, apparently because he had ambitions of displacing C with C++, so > in the early days that's what users ex

Confusing code in regrename.c

Hi, You added some code to regrename in revision 1.28 for which I don't understand the need: 1.26 rth 1595: /* For each earlyclobber operand, zap the value data. */ 1596: for (i = 0; i < n_ops; i++) 1597:if (reco

Re: GCC 3.3.6 has been released

On Sun, 29 May 2005, Brian Dessent wrote: > I noticed that on it > states: > > "A port of GCC 2.95.2 and 3.x is included with the Cygwin environment." > > However, the Cygwin project had to remove its 2.95 gcc package due to > brokenness (and lac