Yes, that was the solution I used

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #171,942

by jb4

8/31/04 11:55:24 AM

Yes, that was the solution I used

This seems to be the best solution; it gives me the explicit bit pattern I'm looking for, and the explicit instruction to treat the patters as signed. Hopefully, when the first draft of the C++0x spec comes out, they will have cleaned up the spec with regards to this particular issue.

jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (jb4) - (52) - Aug. 26, 2004, 06:07:59 PM EDT

What is typeof(0x80000000)? - (ChrisR) - (7) - Aug. 26, 2004, 06:25:16 PM EDT

right, add an L -NT - (deSitter) - (6) - Aug. 26, 2004, 06:30:08 PM EDT

Ain't that a UL - (ChrisR) - (5) - Aug. 26, 2004, 06:34:49 PM EDT

This is why C is sometimes called "high-level assembler." - (static) - (1) - Aug. 26, 2004, 09:11:16 PM EDT

Re: This is why C is sometimes called "high-level assembler. - (jb4) - Aug. 27, 2004, 09:35:47 AM EDT

Actually, that would be a U (or u) - (jb4) - (2) - Aug. 27, 2004, 09:43:22 AM EDT

What about casting the values? - (ChrisR) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:34:46 AM EDT

Yes, that was the solution I used - (jb4) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:55:24 AM EDT

Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (lordbeatnik) - (3) - Aug. 26, 2004, 11:05:40 PM EDT

I guess... - (jb4) - (2) - Aug. 27, 2004, 09:39:19 AM EDT

If there was no ambiguity... - (lordbeatnik) - (1) - Aug. 27, 2004, 06:51:20 PM EDT

For the next set of standards? - (jb4) - Aug. 30, 2004, 05:29:20 PM EDT

Hex constants are assumed to be positive - (Arkadiy) - (36) - Aug. 27, 2004, 11:32:17 AM EDT

Re: Hex constants are assumed to be positive - (jb4) - (35) - Aug. 27, 2004, 01:15:45 PM EDT

Setting the high bit is processor dependent. - (hnick) - (34) - Aug. 27, 2004, 01:27:28 PM EDT

OK, then the standard should be saying - (Arkadiy) - (33) - Aug. 27, 2004, 01:53:36 PM EDT

No I actually write code based on them - (jb4) - (30) - Aug. 27, 2004, 02:27:25 PM EDT

Ignore them and use my common sence -NT - (Arkadiy) - (29) - Aug. 27, 2004, 03:24:32 PM EDT

I'll bet debugging your code is a real joy... - (jb4) - (28) - Aug. 30, 2004, 05:29:56 PM EDT

Nope - (Arkadiy) - (27) - Aug. 31, 2004, 10:04:06 AM EDT

And so tell me, O Oracle of Common Sence [sic] - (jb4) - (26) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:04:10 AM EDT

offensive foul, ball to Ark - (deSitter) - (3) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:10:45 AM EDT

Rest assured, - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:17:52 AM EDT

:) ok -NT - (deSitter) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:25:55 AM EDT

OK, OK... - (jb4) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:26:59 AM EDT

Well, while the tone is disagreable, the question is - (Arkadiy) - (21) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:14:05 AM EDT

Point missed. - (jb4) - (20) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:25:35 AM EDT

If C were sane, TRUE = -1 and problem vanishes -NT - (deSitter) - (7) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:26:40 AM EDT

Ermm...say What? - (jb4) - (2) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:28:42 AM EDT

Re: Ermm...say What? - (deSitter) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:37:26 AM EDT

Much like Jewish law - (Arkadiy) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:43:34 AM EDT

So you prefer how VB does it?? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Aug. 31, 2004, 01:01:31 PM EDT

Point: Ben... -NT - (jb4) - Aug. 31, 2004, 01:04:18 PM EDT

How it used to do it. - (ChrisR) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2004, 01:47:19 PM EDT

Hehee! - (jb4) - Aug. 31, 2004, 03:18:32 PM EDT

Why do you expect hex to be treated differently from decimal - (Arkadiy) - (11) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:32:44 AM EDT

Re: Why do you expect hex to be treated differently - (deSitter) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:42:16 AM EDT

Man, that's a good question! - (jb4) - Aug. 31, 2004, 12:37:46 PM EDT

Now that's clarity! -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (8) - Aug. 31, 2004, 04:42:17 PM EDT

Nope, it's bad math - (deSitter) - (7) - Aug. 31, 2004, 05:00:03 PM EDT

But, counters of real things don't need negative values. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (6) - Aug. 31, 2004, 05:19:13 PM EDT

I'd like to add a negative number of votes for Bush. ;-) -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2004, 05:20:08 PM EDT

That only works on Diebold machines. :) -NT - (a6l6e6x) - Aug. 31, 2004, 05:23:34 PM EDT

Certainly - (deSitter) - (3) - Aug. 31, 2004, 05:21:51 PM EDT

"Expressive", not "pithy" :) - (Arkadiy) - (2) - Aug. 31, 2004, 06:59:29 PM EDT

Re: "Expressive", not "pithy" :) - (deSitter) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2004, 07:03:32 PM EDT

Dunno. - (Arkadiy) - Sept. 1, 2004, 09:33:56 AM EDT

Wasn't trying to piss you off... - (hnick) - (1) - Aug. 27, 2004, 04:06:40 PM EDT

Interesting assumption: - (jb4) - Aug. 30, 2004, 05:51:55 PM EDT

Hmm...while the datatype will be first reached, - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - Aug. 27, 2004, 05:35:03 PM EDT

True, but... - (jb4) - Aug. 30, 2004, 05:55:52 PM EDT

Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (gdaustin) - Aug. 31, 2004, 11:10:58 PM EDT

iwethey.org

Now there's a frood who really knows where his towel is.
165 ms