IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!?
Depends on whether the compiler implicitly promotes them to signed or unsigned integers.

The answer could change depending on whether your compiler treats 0x7fffffff and 0x80000000 as signed or unsigned integers.

I think most compilers would treat them as signed, but gcc might not. Also, in a 64 bit compiler, both would still be positive integers.

There was a guy I worked with at BEA that had a set of about 100 macros that would promote the values and test, and then dump out the compiler assumptions in a report. Very useful when you have to write portable code.

His name is David Tribble. I wonder where he is working now.

Glen
Collapse Edited by gdaustin Aug. 31, 2004, 11:10:58 PM EDT
Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!?
Depends on whether the compiler implicitly promotes them to signed or unsigned integers.

The answer could change depending on whether your compiler treats 0x7fffffff and 0x80000000 as signed or unsigned integers.

I think the standard would treat them as signed, but gcc might not. Also, in a 64 bit compiler, both would still be positive integers.

Glen
     What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (jb4) - (52)
         What is typeof(0x80000000)? - (ChrisR) - (7)
             right, add an L -NT - (deSitter) - (6)
                 Ain't that a UL - (ChrisR) - (5)
                     This is why C is sometimes called "high-level assembler." - (static) - (1)
                         Re: This is why C is sometimes called "high-level assembler. - (jb4)
                     Actually, that would be a U (or u) - (jb4) - (2)
                         What about casting the values? - (ChrisR) - (1)
                             Yes, that was the solution I used - (jb4)
         Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (lordbeatnik) - (3)
             I guess... - (jb4) - (2)
                 If there was no ambiguity... - (lordbeatnik) - (1)
                     For the next set of standards? - (jb4)
         Hex constants are assumed to be positive - (Arkadiy) - (36)
             Re: Hex constants are assumed to be positive - (jb4) - (35)
                 Setting the high bit is processor dependent. - (hnick) - (34)
                     OK, then the standard should be saying - (Arkadiy) - (33)
                         No I actually write code based on them - (jb4) - (30)
                             Ignore them and use my common sence -NT - (Arkadiy) - (29)
                                 I'll bet debugging your code is a real joy... - (jb4) - (28)
                                     Nope - (Arkadiy) - (27)
                                         And so tell me, O Oracle of Common Sence [sic] - (jb4) - (26)
                                             offensive foul, ball to Ark - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                 Rest assured, - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                                     :) ok -NT - (deSitter)
                                                 OK, OK... - (jb4)
                                             Well, while the tone is disagreable, the question is - (Arkadiy) - (21)
                                                 Point missed. - (jb4) - (20)
                                                     If C were sane, TRUE = -1 and problem vanishes -NT - (deSitter) - (7)
                                                         Ermm...say What? - (jb4) - (2)
                                                             Re: Ermm...say What? - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                 Much like Jewish law - (Arkadiy)
                                                         So you prefer how VB does it?? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                             Point: Ben... -NT - (jb4)
                                                             How it used to do it. - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                                 Hehee! - (jb4)
                                                     Why do you expect hex to be treated differently from decimal - (Arkadiy) - (11)
                                                         Re: Why do you expect hex to be treated differently - (deSitter)
                                                         Man, that's a good question! - (jb4)
                                                         Now that's clarity! -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (8)
                                                             Nope, it's bad math - (deSitter) - (7)
                                                                 But, counters of real things don't need negative values. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (6)
                                                                     I'd like to add a negative number of votes for Bush. ;-) -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                                         That only works on Diebold machines. :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                     Certainly - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                                         "Expressive", not "pithy" :) - (Arkadiy) - (2)
                                                                             Re: "Expressive", not "pithy" :) - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                                 Dunno. - (Arkadiy)
                         Wasn't trying to piss you off... - (hnick) - (1)
                             Interesting assumption: - (jb4)
         Hmm...while the datatype will be first reached, - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
             True, but... - (jb4)
         Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (gdaustin)

And suddenly it occurred to me where these guys had learned their tactics. They'd seen Beau Geste, and were copying the Foreign Legionaires at Fort Zinderneuf.
80 ms