Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #108604
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? |
| Date | 2017-04-27 10:46 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <odt02g$k55$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <11ea6682-cdee-4513-97c2-6c90b585716a@googlegroups.com> |
On 04/27/2017 06:13 AM, joel.rees@gmail.com wrote:
> ----------------
> unsigned byteWidth = 8; /* Not depending on limits.h . */
> unsigned byteMask = 0xFF;
> unsigned ulBytes = 4; /* Sane throw-away initial values. */
>
> void setULbytes( void )
> { int i = 0;
> unsigned char chroller = 1;
> unsigned char chMask = 1;
> unsigned long ulroller = 1;
> while ( chroller != 0 )
> { chroller <<= 1;
> chMask = ( chMask << 1 ) | 1;
> ++i;
> }
> byteMask = chMask;
> byteWidth = i;
> i = 0;
> while ( ulroller != 0 )
> { ulroller <<= 1;
> ++i;
> }
> ulBytes = i / byteWidth;
> }
> ----------------
>
> Yes, there is a reason I am ignoring limits.h. Maybe not a good
> reason, but I will debate that later.
>
> Right now I just would like to hear whether shifting unsigned values
> until the bits are supposed to disappear, and testing them for zero,
For unsigned types, the behavior of such shifts are well defined. The
disappearance of bits that you refer to is described in the standard
using the phrase "... reduced modulo one more than the maximum value
representable in the result type." (6.7.4p4)
So long as UCHAR_MAX < INT_MAX, your unsigned char value will get
promoted to "int", which is a signed type. However, unless 2U*UCHAR_MAX
> INT_MAX, you won't run into trouble with this code, since you never
shift by more than 1 bit. If you want to avoid worrying about that
remote possibility, use unsigned int for all of the intermediate steps
in this process.
> is considered in the range of machine-defined stuff that the current
> crop of optimization sophomores (pardon my Latin) conflates with
> undefined.
Well, you don't have to be an optimization sophomore to understand
correctly that the behavior is undefined for signed types. All you have
to do is be able to read English. Later in the same paragraph it says
(about E1 << E2) that "If E1 has a signed type and nonnegative value,
and E1 × 2^E2 is representable in the result type, then that is the
resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is undefined."
Note that "machine-defined" is a meaningless concept in this context. A
machine might have an instruction that could be used to implement a
bit-wise shift, but an implementation of C targeting that machine is
under no obligation to translate a bit-wise shift instruction into that
instruction. When the behavior is well-defined, the implementation is
required to produce the specified behavior, but using that particular
machine instruction is not the only way that could be achieved. Sane
implementors will use some other method only if they think they have a
good reason for doing so. However, if they do think that, the standard
says nothing to prohibit them from doing so.
When the behavior is undefined, the standard, by definition, imposes no
obligations whatsoever on the implementation. In particular, the
implementation is not obligated to produce the same behavior that would
have occurred if it had used that particular machine instruction to
implement the shift. If there's any good reason for using any other way
of achieving the same result when the behavior is defined, that
alternative way has a good chance of NOT producing the same behavior
when the behavior is undefined.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:13 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:41 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-27 11:59 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 14:35 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 15:13 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 00:58 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 16:44 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 08:53 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:23 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-28 18:05 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 09:22 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 12:24 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 00:03 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 16:37 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 17:09 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 17:34 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 01:43 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-29 02:04 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:46 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 12:05 -0500
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:33 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 08:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 17:58 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 09:13 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 12:55 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 09:17 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 20:35 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:39 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-01 16:21 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 06:35 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-02 16:29 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 20:58 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:43 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 14:09 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-28 14:23 +0000
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 16:17 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-28 15:55 +0000
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 19:11 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:23 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 11:31 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 12:01 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 12:47 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 15:20 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 15:22 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 16:52 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 15:18 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-04-29 14:25 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-04-29 08:05 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 13:34 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 05:55 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 15:11 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 15:24 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 14:57 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-03 16:36 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 11:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-03 21:40 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 23:46 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 08:55 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:20 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 10:19 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 09:57 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 17:06 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:38 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:51 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:02 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 14:25 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 09:48 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:07 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:56 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 08:35 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 00:54 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 21:05 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 10:58 +0200
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 10:50 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 10:01 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-28 23:57 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 12:28 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 12:41 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-30 21:46 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 05:41 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-01 13:57 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:30 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 16:13 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 09:12 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 18:15 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 21:39 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-02 13:53 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 14:10 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 22:36 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 15:27 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 00:45 -0500
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-03 11:57 +0100
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 13:34 -0500
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 02:58 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:26 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:54 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:49 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:51 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 09:03 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-02 14:47 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 17:45 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:42 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 23:57 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 04:32 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 18:20 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 23:12 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 19:54 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 21:21 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-27 10:46 -0400
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 08:37 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 10:17 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 12:10 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 13:50 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 14:11 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:44 -0700
Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 22:05 -0700
csiph-web