strom...@nexgo.de said: > Does anybody know of an implementation that does _not_ preserve the > representation when converting from signed to unsigned integer of the same > width? The assumptions already made are: Corresponding signed and unsigned > representation have the same number of bits, signed uses 2's complement > representation, there are no extraordinary values and no padding bits in the > representation.
I think all modern machines are using 2s complement arithmetic. 50 years ago, a few systems used signed-magnitude and 1s complement. That "implementation dependent" sort of weasel wording is probably left over to cover that case. It might actually get interesting if somebody ported a modern c compiler to work on one of those older systems or an emulation of one. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
