--- I wrote:
> If I could do just one modification to the standard, I'd add an overflow
> macro, like errno.
--- peternilsson42 replied:
> The behaviour on integer overflow is undefined. Hence,
> implementations already have the freedom to do precisely
> that if they so choose. [That they don't
Pedro Izecksohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- peternilsson42 wrote:
> > Ah, then you've probably been fooled by the cliché that
> > C is just portable assembler.
>
> If I could do just one modification to the standard,
> I'd add an overflow macro, like errno.
The behaviour on integer overflo
--- peternilsson42 wrote:
> Ah, then you've probably been fooled by the cliché that
> C is just portable assembler.
If I could do just one modification to the standard, I'd add an overflow
macro, like errno.
--- I wrote:
> It is mathematically obvious the Intel's approach. I thought it applied
> wherever it is possible.
Correction:
I thought the mathematically obvious approach would be applied wherever
possible.
