Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Shifting question
Message-ID: <11592@steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 20 Jul 88 15:01:01 GMT
References: <705@bnr-rsc.UUCP> <11556@steinmetz.ge.com> <60290@sun.uucp> <1818@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 19

In article <1818@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM> hunt@spar.UUCP (Neil Hunt) writes:
| In article <60290@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
| >ANSI C:
| >	3.3.7 Bitwise shift operators
| >	...If the value of the right operand is negative or is greater than or
| >	equal to the width in bits of the promoted left operand, the behavior
| >	is undefined.
| 
  So you have to build in an explicit check in every program, comparing
the shift with the size of the item. On the other hand it sure makes the
compilers look better, since no error checking means faster benchmarks
to advertize.

  If I sound really disgusted about this, I am. Compilers on brain
damaged hardware should work correctly.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me