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. Travis
