Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Problem with ranks Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 02:11:57 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 18 Message-ID: <86v9kdrdlu.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="50ca98e22833fa004f70febc55f67ad1"; logging-data="3038"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lrivDt4K+NrjIxxs8H1egp2AcR6tekPE=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:pzMFnUuEL7c5kdhkXkC8W2UU7i8= sha1:d37nN8F+enNjspDqxxftfKXlxzA= Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6128 Spiros Bousbouras writes: > Assume an implementation with 2 extended integer types as follows : > > - INT1 is signed , has 23 value bits and no corresponding unsigned type. > - UINT1 is unsigned , has 40 value bits and no corresponding signed type. > - Both have rank greater than int . > - The rank of UINT1 is smaller than the rank of INT1 . Neither of these types is allowed. Except for _Bool, all integer types have a corresponding type of opposite signedness. > The last stipulation is perverse but I don't see anything in "6.3.1.1 > Boolean, characters, and integers" which forbids it. In reading the C standard it's important to read widely. In this case the provisions you're missing may be found in section 6.2.5 paragraphs 4 through 9.