Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Path | csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: unsigned int |
| Date | Wed, 03 Aug 2016 08:58:43 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Lines | 41 |
| Message-ID | <ln60rh3kuk.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | <unsigned-20160731163521@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <e06rglFmcd5U1@mid.individual.net> <nnn35u$2dd$1@dont-email.me> <nnnnqr$589$1@dont-email.me> <nnnpdf$b3s$1@dont-email.me> <nno33q$fto$1@dont-email.me> <87h9b4uy39.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nnol7a$fk6$1@dont-email.me> <nnpl0b$p7u$1@dont-email.me> <nnqaph$ho$1@dont-email.me> <nnqd6i$92c$1@dont-email.me> <nnqj06$u15$1@dont-email.me> <0584a001-91b8-48d9-80de-3c7db52f5aaa@googlegroups.com> <nnsmgd$gcm$1@dont-email.me> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Injection-Info | mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="28576"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kRSDWZrz6/+FOoKse+pFi" |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:s3EY0UiOxdPYOXb7ckBibfy0M+8= sha1:XghL86DJcGTw9E9JFpA86PzlJ10= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.c:91609 |
Show key headers only | View raw
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 02/08/16 19:16, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:50:36 AM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> I simply have to disagree. The default 'C' int declaration is
>>> signed unless it's explicitly made unsigned.
>>
>> All ASCII characters are in the range 0..127, so all members of the C
>> Character Set are guaranteed have character codes in the range
>> 0..SCHAR_MAX regardless of CHAR_BITS.
>
it's not clear what you mean by "the C Character Set". N1570 5.2.1
describes 4 different character sets: the (source and execution)
(basic and extended) character sets, all of which may differ.
> require ASCII, and C can be implemented with many different character
> sets as long as they cover the standard 26 letter Latin alphabet, 10
> digits, and a range of punctuation and symbols. Historically, EBCDIC
> has probably been popular on some systems. And in modern tools, UTF-8
> and Latin-1 (Windows CP1252, IIRC) are also common for the execution
> character set (if not necessarily for the source character set). Those
> use characters or encodings in the range 128-255 as well.
All members of the basic execution character set (whose values
are listed in 5.2.1) are required to have nonnegative values
(N1570 6.2.5p3). The value of SCHAR_MAX is irrelevant; all such
character must have values in the range 0..CHAR_MAX.
For systems that use ASCII, this can be achieved by using
CHAR_BIT==8 and making plain char either signed or unsigned. For
EBCDIC-based systems, if CHAR_BIT==8 plain char must be unsigned.
(An EBCDIC-based system with signed plain char and CHAR_BIT >= 9
is possible, but I seriously doubt that any such system exists.)
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: unsigned int "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 12:40 -0500
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 11:01 +0200
Re: unsigned int James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-01 10:15 -0400
Re: unsigned int Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 09:59 -0500
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 17:21 +0200
Re: unsigned int Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-01 09:55 -0700
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 22:42 +0200
Re: unsigned int supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 14:18 -0700
Re: unsigned int Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 13:11 -0500
Re: unsigned int Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 19:46 +0100
Re: unsigned int Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 18:20 -0500
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-02 10:18 +0200
Re: unsigned int Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-02 09:35 -0500
Re: unsigned int Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-02 08:00 -0700
Re: unsigned int Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-02 11:12 -0500
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-02 17:11 +0200
Re: unsigned int Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-02 11:55 -0500
Re: unsigned int supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-02 10:16 -0700
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-03 14:02 +0200
Re: unsigned int Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-03 08:58 -0700
Re: unsigned int James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-02 13:57 -0400
Re: unsigned int Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-02 19:30 +0100
Re: unsigned int Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-02 11:38 -0700
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-03 14:12 +0200
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-03 13:45 +0200
Re: unsigned int Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-01 12:02 -0700
Re: unsigned int David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 23:01 +0200
csiph-web