Date: 2012-10-15.00:00:00

[Moved to DR at the October, 2012 meeting.]

Date: 2012-02-15.00:00:00

Proposed resolution (February, 2012):

Change 7.6.5 [expr.mul] paragraph 4 as follows:

...If the second operand of / or % is zero the behavior is undefined. For integral operands the / operator yields the algebraic quotient with any fractional part discarded;⁸¹ if the quotient a/b is representable in the type of the result, (a/b)*b + a%b is equal to a ; otherwise, the behavior of both a/b and a%b is undefined.

Date: 2026-07-25.21:52:10

Issue 614 adopted the corresponding C99 wording for 7.6.5 [expr.mul] paragraph 4,

...if the quotient a/b is representable in the type of the result, (a/b)*b + a%b is equal to a .

in an attempt to ensure that INT_MAX % -1 produces undefined behavior (because the result is not specified by the Standard). However, the new C draft makes the undefined behavior explicit:

If the quotient a/b is representable, the expression (a/b) * b + a%b shall equal a ; otherwise, the behavior of both a/b and a%b is undefined.

Should C++ adopt similar wording?