Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > comp.compilers > #3348
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: C and archtecture, C and Java, was Compilers :) |
| Date | 2023-01-29 19:37 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <23-01-082@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <23-01-007@comp.compilers> <23-01-051@comp.compilers> <23-01-053@comp.compilers> <23-01-054@comp.compilers> <23-01-077@comp.compilers> |
dave_thompson_2@comcast.net writes:
[...]
>> As well as I know it, C only requires assignment to work for
>> pointers cast to (unsigned char *). And once they are cast,
>> usually (though I suppose not always), it is done with memcpy(),
>> or compared with memcmp().
>
> Only unsigned char is 100% guaranteed, but on all known systems today
> signed char has no trap rep and also works and so does plain char.
[...]
The C standard specifically says that signed char has no padding bits
(N1570 6.2.6.2p2).
And plain char has the same representation as either signed char or
unsigned char, so it also has no padding bits.
On the other hand, it's best to use unsigned char to access the
underlying representation. The standard defines the "object
representation" of a value stored in an object in terms of copying it
into an array of unsigned char (N1570 6.2.6.1p4). And C still (until
C23) doesn't mandate 2's-complement for signed types, so that's another
layer of confusion you can avoid by using unsigned char. (all-bits-1
could be a trap representation.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Compilers :) "Tristan B. Velloza Kildaire" <deavmi@redxen.eu> - 2023-01-02 12:28 +0200
Re: Compilers :) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 20:52 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Steve Limb <stephenjohnlimb@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 16:24 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-03 12:52 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2023-01-04 17:12 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-04 12:39 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> - 2023-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-05 16:26 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 15:39 +0100
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-09 17:41 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 17:48 +0100
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-10 15:13 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 13:38 +0100
Re: back in the 60s, another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-11 16:38 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> - 2023-01-15 04:26 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-11 11:02 +0000
Re: Scheme is not another C-like language? was Compilers :) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2023-01-12 02:54 -0500
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2023-01-11 11:58 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-01-11 10:49 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> - 2023-01-15 04:21 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2023-01-15 22:01 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "Luke A. Guest" <laguest@archeia.com> - 2023-01-13 18:25 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2023-01-13 17:20 -0500
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-14 19:07 +0000
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> - 2023-01-07 02:14 -0800
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-08 20:21 +0100
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2023-01-09 04:48 +0100
Re: C scopes, another C-like language? was Compilers :) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-09 18:12 +0100
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 11:24 -0800
Re: Compilers :) "Tristan B. Velloza Kildaire" <deavmi@redxen.eu> - 2023-01-13 13:41 +0200
Re: Compilers :) Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2023-01-05 01:12 +0100
Re: Compilers :) "Tristan B. Velloza Kildaire" <deavmi@redxen.eu> - 2023-01-13 14:17 +0200
Re: C and Java, was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-13 10:32 -0800
Re: C and Java, was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-13 12:39 -0800
Re: C and Java, was Compilers :) dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2023-01-28 10:37 -0500
Re: C and archtecture, C and Java, was Compilers :) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 19:37 -0800
Re: C and Java, was Compilers :) gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-29 21:39 -0800
csiph-web