In article <vhrmk1$1ivhr$[email protected]>,...
James Kuyper <[email protected]> wrote:
Your wording could easily give the false impression, to anyone who
didn't already know better, that promotion of unsigned char to signed
int is required by the standard, rather than it being dependent upon
whether UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX.
Actually I'm not sure that it did. Note the part that you
quoted above that says, "the entire range values is expressible
in a signed int." This implies UCHAR_MAX <= INT_MAX. (By
"values" I meant, "values of that type", not specific values in
any given program).
... Since we're talking about operands to
a binary operator, 6.3.1.8 applies. 6.3.1.8 is why converting
one side to unsigned is sufficient to get an unsigned result.
Calling them the usual arithmetic conversions rather than the integer
promotions is being unnecessarily vague. Your description only covers
the integer promotions, it doesn't cover any of the other usual
arithmetic conversions.
The integer promotions were the only relevant part in context.
Perhaps it would have allayed your concerns to say, "part of"?
On 11/23/24 09:05, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <vhrmk1$1ivhr$[email protected]>,...
James Kuyper <[email protected]> wrote:
Your wording could easily give the false impression, to anyone who
didn't already know better, that promotion of unsigned char to signed
int is required by the standard, rather than it being dependent upon
whether UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX.
Actually I'm not sure that it did. Note the part that you
quoted above that says, "the entire range values is expressible
in a signed int." This implies UCHAR_MAX <= INT_MAX. (By
"values" I meant, "values of that type", not specific values in
any given program).
You paired that assertion with "`unsigned char` has _rank_
lower than _int_", which is a fact guaranteed by the standard, which
could easily give the impression that the comment about the range of
values was either explicitly stated in the standard, or correctly
inferrable from the statement about the ranks.
...
... Since we're talking about operands to
a binary operator, 6.3.1.8 applies. 6.3.1.8 is why converting
one side to unsigned is sufficient to get an unsigned result.
Calling them the usual arithmetic conversions rather than the integer
promotions is being unnecessarily vague. Your description only covers
the integer promotions, it doesn't cover any of the other usual
arithmetic conversions.
The integer promotions were the only relevant part in context.
Perhaps it would have allayed your concerns to say, "part of"?
Partially. However since you described the integer promotions, and the description you provided didn't fit any other part of the usual
arithmetic conversions, and the part you described has it's own special
name, and the integer promotions can occur without the usual arithmetic conversions, it still seems to me more appropriate to say that what you described were the integer promotions.
On 11/23/24 9:43 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
On 11/23/24 09:05, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <vhrmk1$1ivhr$[email protected]>,
James Kuyper <[email protected]> wrote:
...
Your wording could easily give the false impression, to anyone
who didn't already know better, that promotion of unsigned char
to signed int is required by the standard, rather than it being
dependent upon whether UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX.
Actually I'm not sure that it did. Note the part that you quoted
above that says, "the entire range values is expressible in a
signed int." This implies UCHAR_MAX <= INT_MAX. (By "values" I
meant, "values of that type", not specific values in any given
program).
You paired that assertion with "`unsigned char` has _rank_ lower
than _int_", which is a fact guaranteed by the standard, which
could easily give the impression that the comment about the range
of values was either explicitly stated in the standard, or
correctly inferrable from the statement about the ranks.
I don't think unsigned char is guarateed by the standard to be
less than that of int.
On a machine with wide bytes (like some DSP processors) sizeof int
could be 1, which results is some unexpected results,
like UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX.
Richard Damon <[email protected]> writes:
On 11/23/24 9:43 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
On 11/23/24 09:05, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <vhrmk1$1ivhr$[email protected]>,
James Kuyper <[email protected]> wrote:
...
Your wording could easily give the false impression, to anyone
who didn't already know better, that promotion of unsigned char
to signed int is required by the standard, rather than it being
dependent upon whether UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX.
Actually I'm not sure that it did. Note the part that you quoted
above that says, "the entire range values is expressible in a
signed int." This implies UCHAR_MAX <= INT_MAX. (By "values" I
meant, "values of that type", not specific values in any given
program).
You paired that assertion with "`unsigned char` has _rank_ lower
than _int_", which is a fact guaranteed by the standard, which
could easily give the impression that the comment about the range
of values was either explicitly stated in the standard, or
correctly inferrable from the statement about the ranks.
I don't think unsigned char is guarateed by the standard to be
less than that of int.
The integer conversion rank of unsigned char is guaranteed to be
less than the integer conversion rank of int (which incidentally is
the same as the integer conversion rank of unsigned int).
But the set of values of unsigned char is not guaranteed to be a
subset of the set of values of int.
On a machine with wide bytes (like some DSP processors) sizeof int
could be 1, which results is some unexpected results,
like UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX.
sizeof (int) == 1 is sufficient but not necessary.
As long as CHAR_BIT > 15, it is possible for UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX
regardless of the value of sizeof (int).
It would be amusing to see an implementation where CHAR_BIT == 16,
and sizeof (int) == sizeof (long) == sizeof (long long) == 4, but nevertheless UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:54:33 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,902 |
| Posted today: | 1 |