Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:37:32 -0500 From: David Leimbach <leimy2k@mac.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: jilles@stack.nl Subject: Re: GCC 3.3.1, new warnings with <limits> Message-ID: <1046B4F9-B561-11D7-BE3B-0003937E39E0@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20030713.122352.22176834.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20030713000559.28c18be6.kabaev@mail.ru> <20030713044331.GA89785@crodrigues.org> <20030713152154.GA96653@stack.nl> <20030713.122352.22176834.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, July 13, 2003, at 1:23PM, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > 134 #define __glibcpp_signed(T) ((T)(-1) < 0) > : #define __glibcpp_signed(T) (!((T)(-1) > 0)) > > Why not the simpler: > > #define __glibcpp_signed(T) ((T)(-1) <= 0) > > that way we have an overlap on the range of the two types, so we won't > get a warning. We know for a fact that -1 != 0 for all known machine > types (all machines are two's complement, or are required to behave as > if they are two's complement, per the standard). > You keep saying this... where is this "must behave as two's compliment stated?" > (unsigned int) -1 == 0xffffffff (assuming 32-bit int). or with a valid one's compliment C99 compliant system (unsigned int) -1 = 0xfffffffe; > > even on a one's complement's machine, without the standard conversion, > the 'type punning' conversion of -1 would yield 0xfffffffe, which is > still > 0. > Correct :). I still don't think C enforces two's compliment. Dave > Warner > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1046B4F9-B561-11D7-BE3B-0003937E39E0>