Re: Please don't do this (code fragment)

[elf@florence.buici.com]

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing.  There is nothing
I can find in the standard that guarantees that (int) MAX_INT + 1 < 0.
There is a description of type conversion, but that doesn't talk about
overflow behavoir for arithmetic.  If you wish your words to be
believed, please provide a reference.  

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:34:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> elf@florence.buici.com writes:
> 
> > According to every reference I have found, there is no stipulation
> > that integers be implemented using two's complement notation.  IIRC,
> > some of the Cray computers represented integers with a sign bit.  I
> > doubt the claim.
> 
> You don't read very well.  What I said originally was:
> 
>  Actually, the C standard does essentially guarantee two's complement
>  arithmetic.  It specifies integer overflow behavior and
>  signed/unsigned conversion behavior exactly.
> 
>  So a machine can do its arithmetic some other way, but it has to make
>  it seem to the programmer that it's always two's complement.
> 
> Note carefully the distinction between implementation and appearance
> to the programmer.
> 
> Further posts on the thread have corrected my faulty memory; not quite
> as much is specified as I thought.  (In particular, overflow behavior
> is not specified.)  But signed/unsigned conversion *is* so specified.
> 
> Thomas