From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19305 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2010 10:22:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 19275 invoked by uid 48); 19 Feb 2010 10:22:07 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100219102207.19274.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/22200] numeric_limits::is_modulo is inconsistent with gcc In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg01913.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #25 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 10:22 ------- (In reply to comment #24) > Richard, can you comment on this issue? Do you think it's currently correct to > have numeric_limits<>:is_modulo == true for all our signed integral types? We > are not making any progress on this issue :( Well, it's certainly not 100% correct to claim signed ints have modulo semantics. I don't know if it is helpful to say numeric_limits<>:is_modulo == false to our users. It would probably be useful to add a preprocessor macro when -fwrapv is in effect. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22200