This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of C++17 status.
Section: 25.3.5.7 [random.access.iterators] Status: C++17 Submitter: Hubert Tong Opened: 2015-07-15 Last modified: 2017-07-30
Priority: 2
View all other issues in [random.access.iterators].
View all issues with C++17 status.
Discussion:
In subclause 25.3.5.7 [random.access.iterators], Table 110, the operational semantics for the expression "r -= n" are defined as
return r += -n;
Given a difference_type of a type int with range [-32768, 32767], if the value of n is -32768, then the evaluation of -n causes undefined behaviour (Clause 5 [expr] paragraph 4).
The operational semantics may be changed such that the undefined behaviour is avoided. Suggested wording: Replace the operational semantics for "r -= n" with:{ difference_type m = n; if (m >= 0) while (m--) --r; else while (m++) ++r; return r; }
Jonathan Wakely:
I'm now convinced we don't want to change the definition of -= and instead we should explicitly state the (currently implicit) precondition that n != numeric_limits<difference_type>::min().[2016-08, Chicago]
Monday PM: Move to Tentatively Ready
Proposed resolution:
This wording is relative to N4527.
Change Table 110 "Random access iterator requirements (in addition to bidirectional iterator)" as indicated:
Table 110 — Random access iterator requirements (in addition to bidirectional iterator) Expression Return type Operational
semanticsAssertion/note
pre-/post-condition… r -= n X& return r += -n; pre: the absolute value of n is in the range of representable values of difference_type. …