Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #6362

Re: Union test for endianess

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/18/2011 10:45 AM, James Waldby wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 23:59:50 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 06/17/2011 10:53 PM, James Waldby wrote: 
> ...
>>> The logical succession order of bits in unsigned chars as revealed by
>>> C's <<, >> shift operators cannot differ from arithmetic order, because
>>> C99 6.5.7 specifies <<, >> in terms of multiplication and division by
>>> powers of 2.  It appears that in the context of C99 C there is only one
>>> possible bit succession order within unsigned bit fields and unsigned
>>> chars, which is the 1, 2, 4... order referred to in footnote 40.
>>
>> Not quite. C allows access to the object representation of an object as
>> an array of unsigned char. If I set an unsigned long object to store a
>> value of 1, It's a meaningful question to ask which bit of which byte is
>> set as a result. I believe that the standard's use of the term
>> "successive" should not be interpreted as mandating that it be the
>> lowest order bit of any of those bytes; it could be a bit that has a
>> value of 8 in the third byte, for instance.
> 
> I disagree with the first two words of the your reply.  My paragraph 
> to which you respond discusses bit succession order in unsigned bit 
> fields and unsigned chars, and does not address bit order in unsigned 
> longs.  I agree that when non-integer hardware is used to implement
> integer arithmetic, the units bit of an integer might often not be 
> the low bit of a byte.
> 
>> I've heard of a platform where there was built-in support for floating
>> point math, but no hardware support for large integer types. A clumsy
>> work-around was created, that implemented a large integer type by using
>> floating point operations. For such an implementation, bits would almost
>> certainly not be found in any of the normally expected places in the
>> underlying array of unsigned char.
> 
> So, now we can say we've heard your claim of having heard of a platform 
> where there was built-in support for floating point math, but no hardware 
> support for large integer types.  ... Did you perhaps happen to hear the 
> name of said platform?

All that matters to me is the fact that such a implementation could be
made fully conforming, and that's why I remember it. I don't even care
whether such an implementation ever actually existed, so I didn't bother
remembering the name, if indeed I ever knew what the name was.

-- 
James Kuyper

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Union test for endianess Bhasker Penta <bskdsp@gmail.com> - 2011-06-16 20:16 -0700
  Re: Union test for endianess Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-17 15:36 +1200
    Re: Union test for endianess Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-17 14:13 +0000
      Re: Union test for endianess Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-06-17 14:00 -0400
        Re: Union test for endianess Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-19 19:25 +0000
  Re: Union test for endianess China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-16 20:54 -0700
    Re: Union test for endianess Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-17 14:14 +0000
      Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-17 10:28 -0400
        Re: Union test for endianess Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-17 10:54 -0700
      Re: Union test for endianess Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 10:35 -0500
      Re: Union test for endianess "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-18 01:50 +0100
  Re: Union test for endianess China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-16 21:00 -0700
    Re: Union test for endianess Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-06-17 12:09 +0100
  Re: Union test for endianess Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 00:50 -0500
    Re: Union test for endianess Bhasker Penta <bskdsp@gmail.com> - 2011-06-16 23:17 -0700
      Re: Union test for endianess Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 03:01 -0500
        Re: Union test for endianess Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 13:33 -0500
          Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-18 09:18 -0400
          Re: Union test for endianess Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 17:22 -0500
          Re: Union test for endianess Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-19 16:24 -0700
        Re: Union test for endianess Bhasker Penta <bskdsp@gmail.com> - 2011-06-18 01:08 -0700
        Re: Union test for endianess Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-19 15:52 -0700
  Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-17 09:32 -0400
    Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-17 09:52 -0400
      Re: Union test for endianess Bhasker Penta <bskdsp@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 07:13 -0700
        Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-17 10:31 -0400
    Re: Union test for endianess "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-17 15:57 -0700
      Re: Union test for endianess Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-17 16:42 -0700
        Re: Union test for endianess James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-18 02:53 +0000
          Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-17 23:59 -0400
            Re: Union test for endianess James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-18 14:45 +0000
              Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-18 11:08 -0400
              Re: Union test for endianess cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-06-18 19:47 +0000
                Re: Union test for endianess James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-18 23:15 +0000
                Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-18 22:42 -0400
              Re: Union test for endianess Jens <jens.gustedt@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 07:41 -0700
              Re: Union test for endianess Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-22 11:25 -0400
                Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-22 11:40 -0400
                Re: Union test for endianess James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-22 21:42 +0000
      Re: Union test for endianess James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-17 21:18 -0400
  Re: Union test for endianess falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-06-17 20:50 +0000
  Re: Union test for endianess "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-06-18 10:42 -0400
    Re: Union test for endianess Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-06-18 22:55 +0100
      Re: Union test for endianess "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-06-19 21:14 -0400
  Re: Union test for endianess Jens <jens.gustedt@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 07:46 -0700
    Re: Union test for endianess Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-19 16:14 -0700
    Re: Union test for endianess Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 20:24 -0500
      Re: Union test for endianess Jens <jens.gustedt@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 00:31 -0700
        Re: Union test for endianess Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 04:33 -0500
        Re: Union test for endianess Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-20 12:22 -0700

csiph-web