Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-8619-apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive=stdcxx.apache.org@stdcxx.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C2813DFDB
	for <apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Wed,  5 Sep 2012 15:15:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 52565 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2012 15:15:33 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org
Received: (qmail 52529 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2012 15:15:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@stdcxx.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@stdcxx.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.stdcxx.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received: (qmail 52520 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2012 15:15:33 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:15:33 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [64.78.233.62] (HELO moroha.roguewave.com) (64.78.233.62)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:15:26 +0000
Received: from vw-fw.roguewave.com (eagle.blue.roguewave.com [10.50.5.40])
	by moroha.roguewave.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q85FF3PO023045
	for <dev@stdcxx.apache.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:15:04 GMT
Received: from Eagle.Blue.Roguewave.Com ([fe80::8c9b:6e2c:c1ae:c417]) by
 Eagle.Blue.Roguewave.Com ([fe80::8c9b:6e2c:c1ae:c417%10]) with mapi; Wed, 5
 Sep 2012 09:15:03 -0600
From: Travis Vitek <Travis.Vitek@roguewave.com>
To: "dev@stdcxx.apache.org" <dev@stdcxx.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:15:03 -0600
Subject: RE: Intel C++ bug reports?
Thread-Topic: Intel C++ bug reports?
Thread-Index: Ac2LWFc8bWKNCeCGTmqyOsWOFSWddgAHxIog
Message-ID: 
 <53D52D02E87FA04A948D9A74A7AE617C12E8762AA1@Eagle.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
References: <F9F2BE0F-0920-4620-A813-79CBA698BE5D@hates.ms>
 <5046AA04.7070508@gmail.com> <5047356B.5020204@hates.ms>
In-Reply-To: <5047356B.5020204@hates.ms>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


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.
>=20
> 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 sh=
ot it down.

Travis