public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jaak at ristioja dot ee" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:38:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-50865-4-LsnavmoNCS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-50865-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #9 from Jaak Ristioja <jaak at ristioja dot ee> 2011-10-25 16:37:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Well, they are equivalent where they are both defined, or if you apply C99
> rules to infinite-precision integers. The problem here is that INT_MIN %
> -1 is undefined (explicitly in C1X) and so a transformation of INT_MIN % 1
> into INT_MIN % -1 is unsafe (the other way round, transforming undefined
> behavior to defined, is fine at least in the absence of -ftrapv).
But INT_MIN % 1 is still defined to be zero?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-25 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 " jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:31 ` [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 " jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:57 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 15:14 ` jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee
2011-10-25 15:53 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 15:56 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 16:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/50865] " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-25 16:08 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 16:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 16:38 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee [this message]
2011-10-25 17:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2014-12-10 8:40 ` [Bug middle-end/50865] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-23 17:50 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2014-12-23 19:51 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2014-12-24 12:17 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2015-06-23 8:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-50865-4-LsnavmoNCS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).