Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:56:41 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.3.1, new warnings with <limits> Message-ID: <20030713195640.GA17783@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20030713.134838.39218842.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <1046B4F9-B561-11D7-BE3B-0003937E39E0@mac.com> <20030713190720.GA17305@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <340CBBD2-B568-11D7-BE3B-0003937E39E0@mac.com> <20030713.134838.39218842.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:48:38PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <340CBBD2-B568-11D7-BE3B-0003937E39E0@mac.com> > David Leimbach <leimy2k@mac.com> writes: > : So for the one way conversion of signed to unsigned it will behave like > : 2's compliment > : all the time. What about back to signed? > > Same way. > > It will be reduced by the maximum value of the range plus one to do > the conversion. No, this case is implementation-defined if the value cannot be represented by the signed type it is converted to. (If it can be represented then the value will be preserved.) > > See section for 6.3.1.3 for the details. Yes, please do. > > That's why I said 'as if' in my other mail. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030713195640.GA17783>