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?
