From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 10 13:57:07 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA04001 for current-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:57:07 -0700 Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [198.137.146.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA03990 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:57:03 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA18756; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:56:53 -0600 Message-Id: <199510102056.OAA18756@rover.village.org> To: Paul Traina Subject: Re: tail dumps core Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:45:13 PDT Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:56:53 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk : [code deleted that does a memset() on an integer] : : How could this possibly be allowed by the C standard? I'm utterly : confused. I think that on one's complement machines you can have a zero that is "+0" and one that is "-0", one of which may or may not be the "standard" zero on that platform. +0 is typically all zeros on this machine but -0 typically has the sign bit set, and all the rest of the bits clear. However, on a machine like this one would expect the zero to either be normalized, or the sign bit to be masked out. It is a longshot, but I think that it is allowed. It is certainly allowed for pointers, but this isn't a pointer.... Warner