From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 494AA3857B93; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:37:21 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 494AA3857B93 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1685612241; bh=n2WV2rtgmJOrz8ctYs5ArKJ2PmIZkR3rHf3yCnq7qXA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=hqva3T6h6B0xzCkDTRe0UbEOccAHvFo8xnGcdWZjDQvtfpxYIUVfWZqaji3wKuod6 OI6r3QV2rI8j9qPz0O1G5L2M6Y2BwHp/KI/6MCkslZBoE63Y3DmHWMvKZej8EbREnM Bm8UQy2X6Ql+/cVW4QintPKtHuyKw6klvOI78L10= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/22200] numeric_limits::is_modulo is inconsistent with gcc Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 09:37:17 +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: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D22200 Jonathan Wakely changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #44 from Jonathan Wakely --- If I'm reading the history correctly, there's nothing else for libstdc++ to= do here. If the compiler starts to define a macro for -fwrapv then we could us= e it in the library, but that hasn't happened in over a decade with this bug ope= n. Should we close it or reassign it to a different component?=