On 2018-07-23 20:24:11 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:13:21 +0200
> From:Vincent Lefevre
> Message-ID: <20180723131321.gb12...@zira.vinc17.org>
>
> | No, this is not impossible. The result of the test is 0.
>
> Yes, I know, what I meant was
On 2018-07-23 20:04:21 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:48:36 +0200
> From:Vincent Lefevre
> Message-ID: <20180723124836.ga12...@zira.vinc17.org>
>
> | For the signness, one can just do: (T) -1 < 0
>
> Until the brain dead compilers started
Date:Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:48:36 +0200
From:Vincent Lefevre
Message-ID: <20180723124836.ga12...@zira.vinc17.org>
| For the signness, one can just do: (T) -1 < 0
Until the brain dead compilers started bitching about comparing
an unsigned number for < 0 (which is
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 08:06:46 +, Schwarz, Konrad wrote:
> > I don't think such code (to detect whether an arbitrary type is
> > signed or unsigned) exists.
>
> For the signness, one can just do: (T) -1 < 0
>
> Then, to get the minimum value of a signed type, assuming
>
On 2018-07-23 08:06:46 +, Schwarz, Konrad wrote:
> I don't think such code (to detect whether an arbitrary type is
> signed or unsigned) exists.
For the signness, one can just do: (T) -1 < 0
Then, to get the minimum value of a signed type, assuming
two's complement and no padding bits:
(2
> -Original Message-
> From: Joerg Schilling [mailto:joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 4:53 PM
> To: vincent-o...@vinc17.net; austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Subject: Re: About issue 0001108 and abs(INT_MIN)
>
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > The
