> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
> Of Paulo Matos
> Sent: 29 July 2015 10:12
> To: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Expectations for 0/0
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Haley [mailto:a...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 28 July 2015 18:38
> To: Paulo Matos; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Expectations for 0/0
>
> On 07/28/2015 04:40 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > The block skips the test for ((unsig
On 07/28/2015 04:40 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> The block skips the test for ((unsigned int) xx << 1 == 0 && yy == -1),
> should we skip it if they're both zero as well?
Yes. It's undefined behaviour. If we don't want to invoke nasal
daemons we shouldn't do this.
Andrew.
Hi,
What are the expectations for the 0/0 division?
Test execute.exp=arith-rand.c generates two integers, both being 0 and one of
the testing blocks is:
{ signed int xx = x, yy = y, r1, r2;
if ((unsigned int) xx << 1 == 0 && yy == -1)
continue;
r1 = xx / yy;
