Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable?

From	Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable?
Date	2016-12-10 07:22 -0800
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<kfn4m2blsg9.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <o18tj3$d04$1@dont-email.me> <o192rl$tok$1@dont-email.me> <871sxz7qzw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1acb3$545$2@dont-email.me> <87h96v5en0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:12:19 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> On 25/11/16 09:44, Noob wrote:
>>>>> Integer promotion is applied to "an object or expression with an
>>>>> integer type whose integer conversion rank is less than or equal
>>>>> to the rank of int and unsigned int.  If an int can represent all
>>>>> values of the original type, the value is converted to an int;
>>>>> otherwise, it is converted to an unsigned int."
>>>
>>> It's not 100% clear if this is supposed to apply to unsigned int when
>>> int has the same positive range.
>>
>> This was fixed in C11.  The text quoted above is changed, and now
>> reads (emphasis added):
>>
>>   "An object or expression with an integer type (***other than int or
>>   unsigned int***) whose integer conversion rank is less than or equal
>>   to ..."
>>
>> so it is clear that unsigned int never promotes to int.
>
> Ah, thanks.  I never thought to look at the later standard.  The
> preamble lists "integer promotion rules" as one of the major changes so
> one can't assume that this is just a clarification, but the
> parenthetical phrase you highlighted is exactly the meaning I though was
> a possible reading of the old wording.

Most likely the earlier version was just an editorial oversight.
The "less than or equal to the rank of int and unsigned int" was
not present in C99, but added later in one of the TC's.

This suggests on extension of the internet spelling rule to
making editorial changes to the ISO standard.

Thread

Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@free.fr> - 2016-11-24 15:33 +0100
  Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-24 14:59 +0000
    Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@free.fr> - 2016-11-24 18:34 +0100
      Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-24 14:03 -0800
      Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-25 09:50 +0100
    Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-25 09:44 +0100
      Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-25 11:14 +0100
        Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-25 11:12 +0000
          Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-25 10:50 -0800
            Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-25 12:12 -0800
              Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2016-11-25 21:45 +0000
              Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-25 13:58 -0800
                Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:37 -0800
                Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 12:01 +0000
                Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:39 -0800
                Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 09:12 -0800
              Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-25 22:54 +0000
          Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2016-11-25 22:01 +0000
            Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-25 23:22 +0000
              Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:22 -0800
    Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-01 10:16 -0800
      Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-01 11:06 -0800
        Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:40 -0800
        Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:28 +0100
        Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:13 -0800
          Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-10 10:41 -0800
  Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-24 07:40 -0800

csiph-web