From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116451-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11765 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2005 17:58:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11740 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2005 17:58:28 -0000
Received: from smtp-102-tuesday.noc.nerim.net (HELO mallaury.noc.nerim.net) (62.4.17.102)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:58:28 +0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (gdr.net1.nerim.net [62.212.99.186])
	by mallaury.noc.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8DE62D0A;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:58:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j5SHvmKY004729;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:57:48 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j5SHvm4m004728;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:57:48 +0200
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
        Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?
References: <OF8C53C77B.667A02DE-ON4325702E.00541FD7-4325702E.005534DD@il.ibm.com>
	<m31x6ma33w.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0506281643440.12318@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506281643440.12318@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:58:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m37jgeictf.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01162.txt.bz2

"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:

| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > Yes, we should document this.  In general, implementation defined
| > aspects (and some of the undefined behaviour aspects) are missing
| > documentation for C++ -- JSM did some work for that for C.
| 
| Is there a convenient checklist for C++ similar to C99's Annex J.3 and 
| J.4, or is it necessary to go through the whole standard to find what 
| needs documenting?

There is no such things as the C99's annex for C++.  So, I'm afraid
one would go through the entire document.  I'll raise the issue so
that the next C++0x has something similar. But, int the meantime, I'd
try to produce a collection based on grep.

-- Gaby