Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4604.

1. Edit [numeric.ops.gcd] as indicated:

   template<class M, class N>
     constexpr common_type_t<M, N> gcd(M m, N n);
   

   -2- Requires: |m| shall be representable as a value of type M and |n| shall be representable as a value of type N|m| and |n| shall be representable as a value of common_type_t<M, N>. [Note: These requirements ensure, for example, that gcd(m, m) = |m| is representable as a value of type M. — end note]

2. Edit [numeric.ops.lcm] as indicated:

   template<class M, class N>
     constexpr common_type_t<M, N> lcm(M m, N n);
   

   -2- Requires: |m| shall be representable as a value of type M and |n| shall be representable as a value of type N|m| and |n| shall be representable as a value of common_type_t<M, N>. The least common multiple of |m| and |n| shall be representable as a value of type common_type_t<M, N>.

[ 2017-01-27 Telecon ]

Priority 0

This is a duplicate of 2792, which addressed LFTS 2.

By the current definition, gcd((int64_t)1234, (int32_t)-2147483648) is ill-formed (because 2147483648 is not representable as a value of int32_t.) We want to change this case to be well-formed. As long as both |m| and |n| are representable as values of the common type, absolute values can be calculate d without causing unspecified behavior, by converting m and n to the common type before taking the negation.

Suggested resolution:

|m| shall be representable as a value of type M and |n| shall be representable as a value of type N|m| and |n| shall be representable as a value of common_type_t<M, N>.