From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id B425E3858407; Wed,  7 Feb 2024 11:46:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B425E3858407
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707306409;
	bh=sMssED9vYzuiar1fhMVpHaFEW+XqZrayRxOG3ioXwmg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ppBwZqwdnwKD9TKLukq/1FxenO94SUMHH7RKq/EJ73gEIpBH7O1eDxq3YwihlB3U3
	 9EyiprQ1Ikj5AWJA5w98yYw5th9LNbbcTXHYLJ2VKVEAl8J2AJ8qPlKrtCPx3IihMp
	 HBMN7+oeXwB361l0kqzDs+ar3XtQaz0+FxNy7O8k=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/22200] numeric_limits<signed>::is_modulo is
 inconsistent with gcc
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:46:49 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.0.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-22200-4-N5pWalB1Gi@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-22200-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-22200-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D22200

--- Comment #46 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #45)
>=20
> This seems very clear that numeric_limits<int>::is_modulo should be false
> *unless* -fwrapv is used. I'm going to close this now. If GCC gets a macro
> that allows us to detect the presence of -fwrapv we can revisit it.

One thing that should be noted is that fwrapv setting could be even per
function so I suspect it is more complex than that.=