Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: does a double cast to unsigned makes sense in any circumstance?
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 22:28:49 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <86k0ebkuvy.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <86czl8kaew.fsf@levado.to> <sqvfed$rps$1@dont-email.me> <8635lotrby.fsf@levado.to> <ss06le$h5n$1@dont-email.me> <87y23fxt9p.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86a6fur0rh.fsf@levado.to> <87tue2xbu5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <864k5n9wdw.fsf@levado.to> <st28po$p1p$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e5e1159670f97e706efea2e630831efe"; logging-data="12448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zpwm4j4fpaxlkYW95+nZXMqyF14XPK8c="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OQP+6B6iEiAxDIu5J73QhP1naFE= sha1:q853ahsq6rgRR8S+yiDHuE0zJb8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:164769

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> On 1/28/22 20:13, Meredith Montgomery wrote:
> ...
>
>> What's a freestanding implementation?
>
> "The two forms of conforming implementation are hosted and freestanding.
> A conforming hosted implementation shall accept any strictly conforming
> program.  A conforming freestanding implementation shall accept any
> strictly conforming program in which the use of the features specified
> in the library clause (Clause 7) is confined to the contents of the
> standard headers <float.h> , <iso646.h> , <limits.h> , <stdalign.h> ,
> <stdarg.h> , <stdbool.h> , <stddef.h> , <stdint.h> , and <stdnoreturn.h>
> . Additionally, a conforming freestanding implementation shall accept
> any strictly conforming program in which the use of the features
> specified in the header <string.h> , except the following functions:
> strdup , strndup , strcoll , strxfrm , strerror ." (4p6)
>
> That last sentence is new in n2731.pdf, the latest draft of the CX 202X
> that I have.  It's not grammatically correct;  I suspect that the word
> "except" in the final sentence should have been "is confined to the use
> of", paralleling the structure of the previous sentence.

Surely what is intended is just the opposite:  interfaces in <string.h>
may be used, except that strdup, strndup, strcoll, strxfrm, strerror
may not be used.