Compiler bug....

[Scott Bambrough]

Why in this case does the literal have to be promoted?  And why should
the behaviour differ with optimization?\

Scott

Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> 
> dirk.derycke@icos.be wrote:
> >
> > I have the following strange error that occurs when compiling WITHOUT
> > optimizations
> >
> > const unsigned short shift = 32;
> > unsigned int res;
> >
> > res = 1 << shift;
> >
> > normally this fragment should cause an overflow and res should become zero
> Nope. (assuming unsigned int contains no more than 32 representable bits)
> 
>         'If the value of the right operand is negative or is greater than
>         or equal to the number of value and sign bits in the object
>         representation of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is
>         undefined.'
> 
> nathan
> 
> --
> Dr Nathan Sidwell :: Computer Science Department :: Bristol University
>         I have seen the death of PhotoShop -- it is called GIMP
> nathan@acm.org  http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/  nathan@cs.bris.ac.uk

-- 
Scott Bambrough - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM    http://www.rebel.com
NetWinder    http://www.netwinder.org