Groups > comp.lang.c > #21903

Re: Why no warning?

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Why no warning?
Date	Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:07:32 +0000 (UTC)
Organization	Stack Usenet News Service
Lines	34
Message-ID	<slrnjsulgk.2foi.willem@toad.stack.nl> (permalink)
References	<6d2a019d-fea9-406d-9cda-e0d77566f4e6@googlegroups.com> <chine.bleu-376D95.04532306062012@news.eternal-september.org> <0.5de67e0bec5a3be819d5.20120606132913BST.8762b4bp46.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host	toad.stack.nl
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	mud.stack.nl 1338988052 11977 131.155.140.135 (6 Jun 2012 13:07:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@stack.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date	Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:07:32 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent	slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.c:21903

Show key headers only | View raw

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
) China Blue Max <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
)
)> In article <6d2a019d-fea9-406d-9cda-e0d77566f4e6@googlegroups.com>,
)>  Hill Pang <pangbw@gmail.com> wrote:
)>
)>> I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why? 
)>> isn't it an overflow?
)>>  
)>> char c = 0xff;
)>
)> Either char is implicitly unsigned or it used the conversion
)> unsigned->signed of the same size. Unless explicitly marked, the
)> implementation decides whether chars are signed; one of the default
)> conversions is unsigned to signed of the same size.
)
) Unless I've missed what you mean by "default conversions" that's a
) little confusing simply by being overly specific.  C specifies implicit
) conversions between unsigned and signed types of all sizes.  Some are
) defined entirely by the standard, and others are left up to the
) implementation, but there is nothing special about conversion between
) signed and unsigned integer types of the same size.

Since when is the literal 0xff an unsigned type?
As far as I can tell, it should be a signed integer, no?


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

Thread

Why no warning? Hill Pang <pangbw@gmail.com> - 2012-06-06 02:42 -0700
  Re: Why no warning? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-06-06 12:04 +0200
    Re: Why no warning? Hill Pang <pangbw@gmail.com> - 2012-06-06 03:17 -0700
      Re: Why no warning? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-06 06:29 -0400
        Re: Why no warning? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-06-06 12:54 +0200
  Re: Why no warning? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-06-06 12:28 +0200
    Re: Why no warning? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-06-06 12:55 +0200
      Re: Why no warning? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-06-06 13:17 +0200
  Re: Why no warning? Hill Pang <pangbw@gmail.com> - 2012-06-06 04:35 -0700
    Re: Why no warning? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-06 08:56 -0400
      Re: Why no warning? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-06-07 15:05 +0000
  Re: Why no warning? China Blue Max <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-06 04:53 -0700
    Re: Why no warning? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-06 13:29 +0100
      Re: Why no warning? Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-06-06 13:07 +0000
        Re: Why no warning? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-06 17:37 +0100
  Re: Why no warning? Ralph Spitzner <rasp@spitzner.org> - 2012-06-06 16:57 +0200
    Re: Why no warning? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-06 11:20 -0400
    Re: Why no warning? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-06 17:45 +0100

csiph-web