http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-25 17:13:51 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, jaak at ristioja dot ee wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25
> 16:37:48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #9 from Jaak Ristioja 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-25 16:18:12 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, jaak at ristioja dot ee wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25
> 16:08:19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #7 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25 16:08:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> /* X % -Y is the same as X % Y. */
> (fold-const.c:fold_binary_loc) would probably be what's wrong here.
On the other hand
https://www.securecoding.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
