Re: [boost] [gil] gcc fail with simple code

Subject: Re: [boost] [gil] gcc fail with simple code
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-03-28 19:47:22

Christian Henning wrote:

>        a += (1 << 31);

1u << 31 to be on the safe side; 1 << 31 (shifting into the sign bit) is 
undefined by itself. (It was accidentally made defined by C++17 but will 
probably revert to undefined.)