stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Travis Vitek <>
Subject RE: Intel C++ bug reports?
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:15:03 GMT

On 09/05/12 04:20, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
> On 09/04/12 21:25, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 09/04/2012 07:02 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> <snip>
>> Looking at the test below, though, it depends on undefined behavior
>> (signed overflow) so there's no compiler bug. Making max volatile
>> fools icc just enough to produce the expected output (while still
>> relying on undefined behavior). It would be good to clean it up,
>> though. I think computing UINT_MAX instead and shifting it right
>> by the number of sign bits (i.e., 1) should work.
> I _know_ it's undefined behavior. :) My case is that Intel is also the
> only compiler failing this test. On that grounds alone they should look
> at it -- I know the gcc guys do when it comes to their compiler. Let
> them shoot it down if they so wish.

Rogue Wave filed an issue with Intel on 2011/04/25 (issue #628095). They shot it down.


View raw message