Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: does a double cast to unsigned makes sense in any circumstance?
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 13:30:58 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <87y23fxt9p.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <86czl8kaew.fsf@levado.to> <sqvfed$rps$1@dont-email.me> <8635lotrby.fsf@levado.to> <ss06le$h5n$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="edefa9a574b14021f379bca5fa220c53"; logging-data="26742"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199ITurHKR2h0tdi0Z6ukwz"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u3YFL1oL/qpbxOsPrYgN5J7MTsI= sha1:qS0u0VYIVtK974tvAwzCVi5f7u8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:164431

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
> "... the value is converted by repeatedly adding ... one more than the
> maximum value that can be represented in the new type until the value is
> in the range of the new type." (6.3.1.3p2).
>
> It's the other direction that's dangerous: conversion of an integer
> value to a signed integer type that is not representable in that type
> has undefined behavior.

No, converting an out-of-range integer value to a signed integer type
yields an implementation-defined result or raises an
implementation-defined signal.  (C99 added the option of raising a
signal; in my opinion that was a bad idea.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */