Re: Bart, a tcc "issue"

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Bart, a tcc "issue"
Date	2019-11-10 13:15 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87h83b3mao.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <86k189ejbd.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87sgmw3ajx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tIJxF.44123$hh5.23905@fx07.iad> <87mud42zza.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <I%LxF.97742$vD7.18301@fx06.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 11/9/19 10:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>> 
>>> Since rand() returns an int, the only way for RAND_MAX to be UINT_MAX is
>>> if UINT_MAX == INT_MAX (which generally means a Signed-Magnitude machine
>>> or some other odd architecture). And yes, if you want to deal with that
>>> sort of machine a lot of care needs to be taken, as a lot of things we
>>> often take for granted aren't true, like that an unsigned can count the
>>> number of values between any two signed numbers!!
>> 
>> Yes, it's a gruesome corner case for some types of code.
>
> It's only a corner case if you need to be able to work on machines that
> unusual. I would guess very few programs/libraries really need that
> level of portability.

I might even guess that none do!  It's really just a theoretical problem
that comes up when the notion of 100% portable C code is considered.

-- 
Ben.

Thread

Bart, a tcc "issue" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-06 18:40 -0500
  Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 00:03 +0000
    Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 00:06 +0000
    Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 01:44 +0000
  Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-07 10:05 -0500
    Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-07 13:22 -0500
    Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-08 09:19 -0500
      Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-08 11:03 -0500
  Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-11-07 18:22 +0100
    Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-11-07 18:30 +0100
  Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-08 20:51 -0500
    Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-08 20:59 -0800
      Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-09 23:16 +0000
        Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-09 20:27 -0500
          Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-10 01:38 +0000
            Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-09 20:59 -0500
              Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-09 19:22 -0800
          Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-10 03:04 +0000
            Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-09 23:04 -0500
              Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-10 13:15 +0000
        Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-10 06:04 -0800
        Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-10 07:49 -0800
          Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-10 17:49 +0000
      Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-11 02:44 -0800
        Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-11 13:57 -0500
          Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 16:51 -0800
        Re: Bart, a tcc "issue" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 16:03 -0800

csiph-web