Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #109030
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? |
| Date | 2017-05-02 09:12 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnefw7grug.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <kfnk2611yq4.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnfugpk7io.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <s2sNA.471947$o87.76894@fx21.am4> <kfnshknxwys.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <Ul1OA.9399$QR.8073@fx34.am4> |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 02/05/2017 13:30, Tim Rentsch wrote:
[...]
>> Try running the following program (ie, on a 32-bit platform).
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int
>> main(){
>> if( -1U == 0xFFFFFFFF ){
>> printf( " unsigned is 32 bits\n" );
>> } else {
>> printf( " unsigned is NOT 32 bits\n" );
>> }
>>
>> #if -1U == 0xFFFFFFFF
>> printf( " unsigned in pre-processor is 32 bits\n" );
>> #else
>> printf( " unsigned in pre-processor is NOT 32 bits\n" );
>> #endif
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> What's supposed to be the correct output?
It should be
unsigned is 32 bits
unsigned in pre-processor is NOT 32 bits
> Out of 5 C compilers, two say is/is NOT, three say is/is. (And actually
> the four that also work in 64 bits, give the same results in 64 bits.)
It seems you have three non-conforming compilers.
N1570 6.10.1p4:
For the purposes of this token conversion and evaluation, all
signed integer types and all unsigned integer types act as if
they have the same representation as, respectively, the types
intmax_t and uintmax_t defined in the header <stdint.h>.
intmax_t and uintmax_t must be at least 64 bits.
> (Mine [64-bits] says is/is NOT, after it was tweaked to pay to take
> notice of suffixes such as U and LL which it previously ignored.)
>
> (BTW what is the type of 0xFFFFFFFF ? My reading of the standard
> suggests it is long long int, ie. 0x00000000FFFFFFFF.
The type of an unsuffixed hexadecimal integer constant is the first of
int
unsigned int
long int
unsigned long int
long long int
unsigned long long int
in which its value fits. Since unsigned long int is at least 32 bits,
it can't long long int or unsigned long long int. If int is 32 bits,
then the type of 0xFFFFFFFF is unsigned int.
In a preprocessor expression, unsigned int acts like uintmax_t (probably
64 bits).
> While the 1U is 32-bit 0x00000001 unsigned, negated to 0xFFFFFFFF, then
> widened to 0x00000000FFFFFFFF to match the rhs. The latter is converted
> to unsigned because of the mixed operation. So the comparison is done in
> 64 bits. But I might be wrong...)
See above. In a non-preprocessor expression, it's not widened, since
0xFFFFFFFF is (probably) of type unsigned int. In a preprocessor
expression, it's not widened because it's already 64 bits.
> Anyway, I don't think this is related to whether or not a specific type,
> rather than an evaluation of an expression, might be different at in the
> preprocessor.
It is.
--
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
Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:13 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:41 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-27 11:59 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 14:35 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 15:13 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 00:58 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 16:44 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 08:53 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:23 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-28 18:05 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 09:22 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 12:24 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 00:03 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 16:37 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 17:09 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 17:34 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 01:43 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-29 02:04 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:46 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 12:05 -0500
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:33 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 08:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 17:58 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 09:13 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 12:55 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 09:17 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 20:35 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:39 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-01 16:21 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 06:35 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-02 16:29 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 20:58 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:43 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 14:09 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-28 14:23 +0000
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 16:17 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-28 15:55 +0000
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 19:11 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:23 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 11:31 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 12:01 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 12:47 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 15:20 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 15:22 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 16:52 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 15:18 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-04-29 14:25 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-04-29 08:05 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 13:34 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 05:55 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 15:11 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 15:24 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 14:57 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-03 16:36 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 11:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-03 21:40 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 23:46 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 08:55 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:20 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 10:19 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 09:57 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 17:06 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:38 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:51 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:02 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 14:25 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 09:48 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:07 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:56 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 08:35 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 00:54 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 21:05 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 10:58 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 10:50 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 10:01 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-28 23:57 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 12:28 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 12:41 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-30 21:46 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 05:41 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-01 13:57 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:30 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 16:13 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 09:12 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 18:15 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 21:39 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-02 13:53 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 14:10 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 22:36 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 15:27 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 00:45 -0500
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-03 11:57 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 13:34 -0500
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 02:58 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:54 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:49 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:51 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 09:03 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-02 14:47 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 17:45 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:42 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 23:57 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 04:32 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 18:20 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 23:12 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 19:54 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 21:21 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-27 10:46 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 08:37 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 10:17 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 12:10 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 13:50 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 14:11 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:44 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 22:05 -0700
csiph-web