This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: signed/unsigned integer conversion for right shift seems
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Peter Breuer <ptb at inv dot it dot uc3m dot es>
- Cc: Liu Hao <lh_mouse at 126 dot com>, Peter Breuer <Peter dot T dot Breuer at gmail dot com>, gcc-help <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:27:32 +0000
- Subject: Re: signed/unsigned integer conversion for right shift seems
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAH6eHdTdTcathXdgEMYmHbiegcydUqpe8Fx=RknmM1cj18A=GA@mail.gmail.com> <201802061823.w16INI8h023639@nbd.it.uc3m.es>
On 6 February 2018 at 18:23, Peter T. Breuer <ptb@inv.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> "Also sprach Jonathan Wakely:"
>> >> The specification of each operator tells you if it's applied. 6.5.7
>> >> doesn't say they are, so they aren't.
>
> (attempt to apply no say = must not ignored for the purposes of a
> communicative interaction with the humanZ here ...)
>
>> > I don't have a "specification of each operator" to look at ... probably
>> > it doesn't junp out from google for me as easily as other stuff does.
>>
>> See the C standard.
>
> Where specifically? I am now looking at the draft standard for
> ISO-whatever at
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf
The specification of each operator of course!
You've been pointed to them multiple times now, 6.5.5, and 6.5.6, and
6.5.7, and so on.
Are you trolling or just stubborn and unable to accept the help you asked for?
Maybe this will help:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/conversion#Usual_arithmetic_conversions
And specifically:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_arithmetic#Shift_operators
But feel free to shift the goalposts again and insist that somebody
proves the correctness of those pages, or some other way to move the
burden of proof from your mistaken interpretation to everybody else.