Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: bitwise operators(info) |
| Date | 2012-01-29 09:27 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jg3ktf$ua7$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <96da10c2-5084-44fe-a0b1-dfd3d145e36f@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <chine.bleu-83BB34.16524127012012@news.eternal-september.org> <lnzkd81vqy.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <jfvrm4$brj$1@dont-email.me> <lnaa581mb3.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
On 1/27/2012 23:30, Keith Thompson wrote: > Eric Sosman<esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> writes: >> On 1/27/2012 8:06 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> In fact an int is represented in binary on any conforming >>> implementation; see C99 6.2.6.2. >> >> I've invented a four-state device that is 7% faster, 18% less >> power-hungry, and 31% cheaper to manufacture than a pair of two- >> state devices. I'm building a revolutionary new computer based on >> these devices, storing values as 0,1,2,3 "quits" instead of as pairs >> of 0,1 "bits." Is my C implementation doomed to be non-conforming? > > Not if you manage to make it *look* like everything is made of bits. > Yeah. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. The context is "bitwise operators," which work with bits. :) Since inspecting the object representation must be possible, any difference between abstract machine and physical representation seems out-of-scope. -- "The stationery store has moved. Aaargh!"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
bitwise operators(info) Ceriousmall <divadsmall@gmail.com> - 2012-01-27 13:56 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-01-27 22:03 +0000
Re: bitwise operators(info) "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2012-01-27 17:35 -0500
Re: bitwise operators(info) Ceriousmall <divadsmall@gmail.com> - 2012-01-27 16:22 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Devil with the China Blue Dress <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-27 16:52 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-27 17:06 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2012-01-27 19:06 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-28 11:33 +0000
Re: bitwise operators(info) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-28 13:46 -0500
Re: bitwise operators(info) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-28 19:01 +0000
Re: bitwise operators(info) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-28 22:41 +0000
Re: bitwise operators(info) Ceriousmall <divadsmall@gmail.com> - 2012-01-28 21:19 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-29 02:13 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-29 14:59 +0000
Re: bitwise operators(info) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-01-29 10:51 -0500
Re: bitwise operators(info) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-01-30 10:25 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Ceriousmall <divadsmall@gmail.com> - 2012-01-31 06:00 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-31 14:30 +0000
Re: bitwise operators(info) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-01-31 10:06 -0500
Re: bitwise operators(info) Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2012-01-28 12:34 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-01-27 22:56 -0500
Re: bitwise operators(info) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-27 20:30 -0800
Re: bitwise operators(info) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-01-29 09:27 -0500
Re: bitwise operators(info) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-28 05:16 +0000
Re: bitwise operators(info) Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-01-27 21:44 -0700
csiph-web