On Wednesday 02 of January 2013 05:25:19 Tixy wrote: > On Tue, 2013-01-01 at 11:41 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > Looking into it a bit more, I can't find a place where the C99 standard > > requires *any* warnings. In particular: > > > > Annex I > > (informative) > > Common warnings > > 1 An implementation may generate warnings in many situations, none of which > > are > > specified as part of this International Standard. The following are a few > > of the more > > common situations. > > > > (a list of warnings follows) > > > > A search doesn't turn up the string "warn" anywhere in the standard > > except in this annex. > > But it probably has quite a few occurrences of 'diagnostic', the C++ > standard does; and it states that a 'diagnostic message' shall be issued > if a program breaks the rules of the language except where the standard > explicitly states no diagnostic is required. > > With regard to the original question of assigning a negative value to an > unsigned integer, this seems to be allowed and defined behaviour. The > section on integral conversions has: > > If the destination type is unsigned, the resulting value is the > least unsigned integer congruent to the source integer (modulo 2 > n where n is the number of bits used to represent the unsigned > type). [Note: In a two’s complement representation, this > conversion is conceptual and there is no change in the bit > pattern (if there is no truncation). ] >
Thank you all for your help in understanding my problem. Best regards, Zbigniew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201301020850.00733.cblas...@gmail.com
