Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Prioritize Performance over Correctness Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 07:59:43 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 14 Message-ID: <86tsou2js0.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <113ovuj$23t9c$1@dont-email.me> <113p2o1$2es3m$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <113pkn9$23t9d$1@dont-email.me> <113pvnb$2mr56$1@dont-email.me> <113rinb$3c4f8$2@dont-email.me> <113sjg8$3k0q6$1@dont-email.me> <113u16u$6bo3$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <113u27c$6bo3$2@kst.eternal-september.org> <113u3j5$7cq1$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <113v3u3$gi3r$1@dont-email.me> <1142oc0$14b1e$1@paganini.bofh.team> <1147mnu$37r54$1@dont-email.me> <1148d9b$3fv8p$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <1148fp9$3gt3k$2@dont-email.me> <1148hm4$3hsla$1@dont-email.me> <1148ldb$3ij1h$1@kst.eternal-september.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 14:59:44 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="262108"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xnyJy9xne8dY3Oi8WADH5uTze5wL594Q="; posting-host="d60e9cb3bc0ca954ed7c56d99ae2d4fd" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:oxAt029G1klerhNZGltkmcvlmeo= sha1:vp5TRhwdEL5UMtumPxu2flJCUpg= sha256:Y2sCYv0Xh2NAcv+pOWjGKDtekVmSYHkmx9z2OzDiLFQ= sha1:ouwyLijogmlzyG6UubWd43WqBNI= sha256:njpeubEI+z3JCICvIx81ZWO+xUPxHBGccdxQhLDmOxs= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:401231 Keith Thompson writes: > Note that the requirement for all-bits-zero to be a valid > representation for zero in all integer types was added, without > much fanfare, in a technical corrigendum to C99, [...] That's true but it wasn't at all a big leap. First it was already guaranteed to be true for integer types without padding bits. Second the only additional constraint imposed is that a value of 0 could have all padding bits be zeros (which likely was already satisfied by all existing implementations). The C89/C90 standard doesn't use the term padding bits but they may be inferred from the description of binary representation for integer values ("pure binary numeration system").