On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 04:41:06PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 14:32:40 +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Pardon my ignorance here, but the following fragment
returns -1, doesn't it?
#include stdio.h
void
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 09:02:40PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 04:41:06PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 14:32:40 +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Pardon my ignorance here, but the following fragment
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 09:02:40PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
For ANSI C, the result of the subtraction only depends on the width
of unsigned char. If unsigned char has the same width as int, then
the result is UINT_MAX; otherwise the result is
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 03:26:54PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
Since both operands are unsigned, result can't be negative, but supposed
to be. Here is the fix:
--- b.c.bak Fri Dec 13 14:54:12 2002
+++ b.c Fri Dec 13 15:20:15 2002
@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@
s[0][0] = a;
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 14:32:40 +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Pardon my ignorance here, but the following fragment
returns -1, doesn't it?
#include stdio.h
void
main(void)
{
int i;
i = (unsigned char)1 - (unsigned char)2;
printf(%d\n, i);
}
It very depends on
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 04:41:06PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 14:32:40 +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Pardon my ignorance here, but the following fragment
returns -1, doesn't it?
#include stdio.h
void
main(void)
{
int i;
i =
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 17:09:42 +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
:
: * Integer types `unsigned short' and `unsigned char' promote to
: `unsigned int'.
With -traditional, the code I quoted still produces -1.
Probably because of machine-specific overflow handling or printf
