From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
To: aoliva@redhat.com, law@cygnus.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu
Subject: Re: Pathalogical divides
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 06:57:00 -0000
Message-id: <20000925135615.00CA234D8C@nile.gnat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-09/msg00596.html

>> This is because the division of the largest negative integer by
>> negative one results in an overflow.

But that is part of the *implementation* not the semantic definition

<<Err...  In my copy of the C Standard, integer overflow invokes
undefined behavior, so signalling is acceptable behavior (just like
anything else :-)
>>

That is talking about operations which at the *semantic* level cause
integer overflow.

a % (-1) is defined for all values of a and does not cause integer
overflow, and furthermore in this particular case the range of possible
values allowed by the standard includes only zero.