Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #153691 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-17 22:11 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-08-23 08:03 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 154 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
widening multiplication jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-08-17 22:11 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2020-08-17 16:30 -0400
Re: widening multiplication jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-08-18 09:27 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2020-08-17 13:33 -0700
Re: widening multiplication jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-08-18 09:24 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2020-08-21 14:47 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-17 21:52 +0100
Re: widening multiplication jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-08-18 09:22 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-17 14:10 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-17 22:33 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-17 15:13 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-18 11:33 +0200
Re: widening multiplication jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-08-18 09:20 +0200
Re: widening multiplication scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-17 21:38 +0000
Re: widening multiplication jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-08-18 09:19 +0200
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-18 11:31 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-18 05:00 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-18 15:10 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-18 12:31 +0000
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-18 15:15 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-18 06:53 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-18 16:14 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-18 07:24 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-18 22:41 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-18 14:24 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-18 22:54 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-18 15:18 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-18 15:54 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-18 15:38 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-19 07:03 +0000
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-19 09:24 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 02:13 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-19 10:43 +0000
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-19 12:50 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 07:30 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 07:44 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-19 17:35 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 10:13 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 14:30 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 15:07 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-19 22:13 +0000
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 15:49 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-20 11:31 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-20 03:47 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-20 13:21 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-20 08:20 -0400
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-21 09:51 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-21 02:51 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-21 11:44 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-21 12:17 +0100
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-21 13:36 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-21 13:15 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-21 11:04 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-21 08:30 -0400
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-21 13:32 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-21 12:46 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-21 07:43 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-21 16:13 +0100
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-21 20:15 +0200
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-21 20:14 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-21 16:37 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-22 15:38 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 01:02 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 04:57 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-22 16:11 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 08:46 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-22 18:33 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-22 13:44 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 12:48 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 21:45 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 05:20 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-22 10:16 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 08:59 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-22 19:04 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-22 13:59 -0400
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-22 23:01 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-08-23 07:42 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 22:12 +0100
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-23 13:31 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 04:53 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-23 14:22 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 06:47 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-23 16:25 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 07:42 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-24 09:10 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 02:06 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-23 13:10 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-23 16:16 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 22:02 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 18:14 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-23 14:27 +0200
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-21 05:58 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-19 19:15 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 16:48 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-19 23:39 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 15:51 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 15:56 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 16:04 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-19 18:04 -0700
Re: widening multiplication antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-08-20 00:13 +0000
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-20 10:06 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2020-08-20 11:26 +0200
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-20 13:25 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-19 07:41 -0400
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-19 15:08 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-19 10:29 -0400
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-19 17:41 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-19 13:34 -0400
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-19 20:21 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-18 15:16 -0700
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-19 09:32 +0200
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-18 11:11 -0400
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-18 22:45 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 20:17 +0200
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-19 15:20 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-19 20:59 +0000
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-19 17:28 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-19 22:43 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2020-08-19 21:38 +0200
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-19 21:47 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> - 2020-08-20 12:24 +0200
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-20 08:14 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> - 2020-08-20 14:20 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-20 10:39 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-19 15:55 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 12:30 +0200
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-22 05:09 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 17:15 +0200
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-22 19:06 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 19:06 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 20:28 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 01:36 +0200
Re: widening multiplication "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 18:15 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 11:16 +0200
Re: widening multiplication "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 21:05 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 12:45 -0700
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-22 11:47 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-22 10:21 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-22 16:18 +0100
Re: widening multiplication David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-22 19:16 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-23 04:38 +0000
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-23 08:22 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-24 03:00 +0000
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-23 23:54 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-24 06:19 +0000
Re: widening multiplication James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-08-24 09:45 -0400
Re: widening multiplication Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-24 14:47 +0000
Re: widening multiplication "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 12:14 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 08:40 -0700
Re: widening multiplication Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-26 18:06 +0000
Re: widening multiplication Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 17:55 +0200
Re: widening multiplication Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-23 17:38 +0100
Re: widening multiplication Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 13:15 -0700
Re: widening multiplication rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2020-08-23 08:03 -0700
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-20 12:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhlj0d$59c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #153766 |
>> Gcc is wrong. > It does exactly what I would expect. Then you're wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-20 08:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rhlpf3$e1q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153789 |
On 8/20/20 6:24 AM, Daniel Hyde wrote: >>> Gcc is wrong. > >> It does exactly what I would expect. > > Then you're wrong. You've made repeated false assertions about fairly basic features of C, without even attempting to justify or even explain them. Jorgen might not be right that you're the same person who also posts as Scott Newman, but if not, the resemblance is uncanny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-20 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhlpqr$v1e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #153793 |
>> Then you're wrong. > You've made repeated false assertions about fairly basic features of C, > without even attempting to justify or even explain them. Jorgen might > not be right that you're the same person who also posts as Scott Newman, > but if not, the resemblance is uncanny. I'm Daniel Hyde, a famous programmer. And I'm right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-20 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ft8h8bet.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #153795 |
Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Then you're wrong.
>
>> You've made repeated false assertions about fairly basic features of C,
>> without even attempting to justify or even explain them. Jorgen might
>> not be right that you're the same person who also posts as Scott Newman,
>> but if not, the resemblance is uncanny.
>
> I'm Daniel Hyde, a famous programmer.
> And I'm right.
You're a boring troll, and a week from now I probably won't even
remember why you're in my killfile.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 15:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9tf%G.53437$5l1.20978@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #153762 |
On 8/19/20 2:17 PM, Daniel Hyde wrote: >> Gcc generates a 32 bit multiplication, discarding any result that >> overflows, then widens the possibly truncated result to 64 bits. >> Lcc-win generates a 64 bit multiplication. > > Gcc is wrong. GCC does it per the spec. int * int yields int
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 12:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhqs3c$1jsg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #153768 |
>> Gcc is wrong. > GCC does it per the spec. int * int yields int No, it yields long since long is always twice as large as int and can hold the result of a multiplication of two ints. This is what the standard says !!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a8a726d-6e50-4af2-b967-b67b85f322a2o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153852 |
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 6:30:13 AM UTC-4, Daniel Hyde wrote: > >> Gcc is wrong. > > > GCC does it per the spec. int * int yields int > > No, it yields long since long is always twice as large as int > and can hold the result of a multiplication of two ints. This > is what the standard says !!! OK, since you actually bothered to give a more detailed response, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you don't actually know that your explanation is incorrect. Please identify where in the standard it says that - when you go looking, you'll fail to find it. I'll tell you precisely what the standard does say about this: "The usual arithmetic conversions are performed on the operands." (6.5.5p3). The description of the usual arithmetic conversions starts out with "Many operators that expect operands of arithmetic type cause conversions and yield result types in a similar way. The purpose is to determine a common real type for the operands and result." (6.3.1.8p1) In other words, the "common real type" is the type that both operands are converted to, and it is also the the type of the result of the operation. Going through the usual arithmetic conversions, "if the corresponding real type of either operand is long double" doesn't apply. "if the corresponding real type of either operand is double" doesn't apply. "if the corresponding real type of either operand is float" doesn't apply. "the integer promotions are performed on both operands" does apply. Since both operands are 'int', the integer promotions have no effect. Finally, "If both operands have the same type, then no further conversion is needed." In other words, the common real type is "int", which is therefore also the type of the result of the multiplication. Your turn: please identify where the standard specifies that the result of multiplying two ints is a long.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Hyde <Daniel.Hyde71@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 17:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhrcqf$ccf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #153859 |
You're wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 19:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhrjai$s5d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153868 |
On 22/08/2020 17:15, Daniel Hyde wrote: > You're wrong. I think, James, it is time to give up on this fool. It's good to make sure anyone else reading this thread understands the reality of the issue, but you can't force Daniel to learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 19:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rhrmre$gf9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153878 |
On 22/08/2020 18:06, David Brown wrote: > On 22/08/2020 17:15, Daniel Hyde wrote: >> You're wrong. > > I think, James, it is time to give up on this fool. It's good to make > sure anyone else reading this thread understands the reality of the > issue, but you can't force Daniel to learn. > Daniel Hyde = Scot Newman = Bonita Montero Best just to ignore the troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhro42$qbu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153882 |
> Daniel Hyde = Scot Newman = Bonita Montero Sorry, I'm neither Scott or Daniel whatever. And I'm using a different newsserver for years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 01:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhsa5r$2fn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153882 |
> > Daniel Hyde = Scot Newman = Bonita Montero Sorry, that's half of the truth only. I'm using more than these 3 fake identities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 18:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rhsfuj$18g6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #153914 |
On 8/22/2020 4:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> >> Daniel Hyde = Scot Newman = Bonita Montero > > Sorry, that's half of the truth only. > I'm using more than these 3 fake identities. WHY!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 11:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhtc6a$svt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153914 |
>> Daniel Hyde = Scot Newman = Bonita Montero > Sorry, that's half of the truth only. > I'm using more than these 3 fake identities. Sorry, this wasn't me but someone else under my name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 21:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rhve9o$gna$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #153940 |
On 8/23/2020 2:16 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Daniel Hyde = Scot Newman = Bonita Montero > >> Sorry, that's half of the truth only. >> I'm using more than these 3 fake identities. > > Sorry, this wasn't me but someone else under my name. Damn, that's evil!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87eeny79dg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #153878 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 22/08/2020 17:15, Daniel Hyde wrote:
>> You're wrong.
>
> I think, James, it is time to give up on this fool. It's good to make
> sure anyone else reading this thread understands the reality of the
> issue, but you can't force Daniel to learn.
Daniel Hyde may or may not be a fool, and learning is not the issue.
Daniel Hyde is obviously a liar and a deliberate troll.
I don't know or care whether "Daniel Hyde" is the same person as
some other troll(s) with similar writing style, and I suggest we
don't waste time speculating.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1600420-dc72-4404-977e-9837ac5ee7edo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153868 |
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 11:15:37 AM UTC-4, Daniel Hyde wrote: You not only didn't bother explaining why you think I'm wrong, you failed to even clearly identify which of my statements you think is wrong. Therefore, I've made the choice for you. [Restore snippage - selectively :-)] > On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 8:10:08 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote: > ... > > OK, since you actually bothered to give a more detailed response, I'll > > give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you don't actually > > know that your explanation is incorrect. > You're wrong. I have to agree. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 10:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <NR90H.97764$qo5.58784@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #153852 |
On 8/22/20 6:30 AM, Daniel Hyde wrote: >>> Gcc is wrong. > >> GCC does it per the spec. int * int yields int > > No, it yields long since long is always twice as large as int > and can hold the result of a multiplication of two ints. This > is what the standard says !!! James gave you one answer. I will correct another issue. The type long does NOT need to be twice as long as int, and in fact in some very common platforms it isn't. The minimum size of long is twice as big as the minimum size of int, but if int is bigger than its minimum, it can be the same size as long. It is very common on 32-bit platforms, and some 64-bit platforms (mostly for backwards compatibility) for int to be 32-bits as well as long, and let long long be the 64-bit type.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 16:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6Ha0H.862816$Sk2.741708@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #153866 |
On 22/08/2020 15:21, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/22/20 6:30 AM, Daniel Hyde wrote:
>>>> Gcc is wrong.
>>
>>> GCC does it per the spec. int * int yields int
>>
>> No, it yields long since long is always twice as large as int
>> and can hold the result of a multiplication of two ints. This
>> is what the standard says !!!
>
> James gave you one answer. I will correct another issue.
>
> The type long does NOT need to be twice as long as int, and in fact in
> some very common platforms it isn't.
>
> The minimum size of long is twice as big as the minimum size of int, but
> if int is bigger than its minimum, it can be the same size as long.
>
> It is very common on 32-bit platforms, and some 64-bit platforms (mostly
> for backwards compatibility) for int to be 32-bits as well as long, and
> let long long be the 64-bit type.
>
You'd think they have fixed it by now, instead of still having these
vague, ill-defined types. Yes there are int32_t and int64_t, but these
are often defined on top of int, long and long long (notice 2 into 3
doesn't go). And you will see evidence of that with "%ld" formats and
-LL suffixes.
Languages that use int and long:
int long
Java 32 64 bits
C# 32 64
Scala 32 64
Languages that use specifically-size types as intrinsic types:
Rust i32 i64
Go int32 int64
Julia int32 int64
Nim int32 int64
In C, you will variously see int, int32_t, long, signed, int32, i32,
gint32, INT32TYPE, etc, even 20 years after C99, which would not have
been the case if sorted out much sooner.
For example:
char 8 bits
short 16
int 32
long 64
long long 128
Then the famous Daniel Hyde would have been right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 19:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhrjt8$1ad$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153869 |
On 22/08/2020 17:18, Bart wrote: > On 22/08/2020 15:21, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 8/22/20 6:30 AM, Daniel Hyde wrote: >>>>> Gcc is wrong. >>> >>>> GCC does it per the spec. int * int yields int >>> >>> No, it yields long since long is always twice as large as int >>> and can hold the result of a multiplication of two ints. This >>> is what the standard says !!! >> >> James gave you one answer. I will correct another issue. >> >> The type long does NOT need to be twice as long as int, and in fact in >> some very common platforms it isn't. >> >> The minimum size of long is twice as big as the minimum size of int, but >> if int is bigger than its minimum, it can be the same size as long. >> >> It is very common on 32-bit platforms, and some 64-bit platforms (mostly >> for backwards compatibility) for int to be 32-bits as well as long, and >> let long long be the 64-bit type. >> > > You'd think they have fixed it by now, instead of still having these > vague, ill-defined types. You mean you think the fundamental types in C should be changed, breaking all existing code? Fortunately, not many other people think that is a good idea. (With hindsight it is easy to see that C's type system has its limitations - I won't argue about that. But it cannot be "fixed" by breaking everything else.) > Yes there are int32_t and int64_t, but these > are often defined on top of int, long and long long (notice 2 into 3 > doesn't go). And you will see evidence of that with "%ld" formats and > -LL suffixes. The fixed size types in C are almost as clear and consistent as the fixed size types in any other language. The "promote to int" rules mean that this is only "almost". (Yes, there can be odd effects on particularly odd platforms - but in a comparison to other languages that is irrelevant, since other languages generally do not exist on those odd platforms.) > > Languages that use int and long: > > int long > > Java 32 64 bits > C# 32 64 > Scala 32 64 > > Languages that use specifically-size types as intrinsic types: > > Rust i32 i64 > Go int32 int64 > Julia int32 int64 > Nim int32 int64 > > In C, you will variously see int, int32_t, long, signed, int32, i32, > gint32, INT32TYPE, etc, even 20 years after C99, which would not have > been the case if sorted out much sooner. > > For example: > > char 8 bits > short 16 > int 32 > long 64 > long long 128 > It would be nice if that had been the case, agreed. But whenever you need fixed size types, you have intN_t. There is rarely a good reason to use any other names for fixed size types - if people such as yourself did not throw your rattle out of the pram at writing "int32_t", there would be a lot fewer of these program-specific fixed size types. > Then the famous Daniel Hyde would have been right. > He would have been right that "long" is twice as big as "int", but he'd still be wrong about almost everything else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web