Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Bug fix for Turbo C ? Message-ID: Date: 27 Jun 91 09:26:04 GMT References: <1991Jun26.155139.86965@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> <4879@inews.intel.com> Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: bhoughto@bishop.intel.com's message of 27 Jun 91 01:30:40 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com Blair P. Houghton says: If it were ANSI C, I'd point to the part where it says bitwise operations are undefined when performed on signed operands... Which bit is that? [My draft says in 3.3.7 under ``semantics'' that (in E1 >> E2) ``if E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the resulting value is implementation-defined'' (not ``undefined''). For E1 << E2, it just says that it's ``E1 left-shifted E2 positions'', and details the value for E1 of unsigned type, but seems to be silent on E1 of signed type. I had though I had a ``latest draft'', but now I look at the date it's Dec 88. Another change?] -- Regards, Chris ``GC's should take less than 0.1 second'' Dollin.