> in fact, it works with any compiler by necessity, as the assignment to char > variables MUST truncate the result. > > the masking in line 12 is necessary, because there is no assignment. > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46073295/implicit-type-promotion-rules > explains the deeper problem.
To quote this page "These rules are often not even known by the average C programmer and therefore causing all manner of very subtle bugs." Would it make the code more clear to mask it to 0xff or mod it % 256? Would it hurt anything? It may avoid some bug in the future if someone comes along and modifies this code without knowing this nuance of C. Anyway, it currently works, just wanted to be sure it wasn't a potential bug. Michael Grant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ isync-devel mailing list isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
